THE $49,000 QUESTION: WHY IS A FORMER AAA CEO SPENDING THIS MUCH TO DEFEAT ONE ARCADIA COUNCILMEMBER?

THE $49,000 QUESTION: WHY IS A FORMER AAA CEO SPENDING THIS MUCH TO DEFEAT ONE ARCADIA COUNCILMEMBER?

By Arcadia’s Best News

Something unusual is happening in Arcadia’s District 5 election, and voters should be paying attention.

A September 28 campaign filing shows Thomas McKernan contributed $49,000 to a political committee called “Arcadia Deserves Better – Opposing Michael Cao for City Council 2026.”

Not $4,900.

$49,000.

One donor. One opposition committee. One candidate. One City Council district.

McKernan is no obscure political donor. He is the former longtime chief executive of the Automobile Club of Southern California. A man who spent decades at the highest levels of a major Southern California organization has now committed nearly $50,000 to a committee whose very name announces its mission: defeat Michael Cao.

That deserves scrutiny.

This is not a congressional race with hundreds of thousands of voters. It is not a state legislative contest. It is not even an Arcadia citywide election.

It is one seat representing District 5.

So why does defeating Michael Cao matter enough to Thomas McKernan to warrant a $49,000 contribution?

That is the question hanging over this election.

McKernan has every legal right to spend his money participating in politics. Nothing about the contribution, standing alone, establishes corruption, a secret arrangement or anything unlawful. His former position at AAA likewise does not mean AAA has anything to do with this committee.

But those caveats do not make $49,000 any less remarkable.

Campaign disclosure exists so voters can see who is financing the political messages arriving in their mailboxes and appearing on their screens. The filing has given District 5 one answer: Thomas McKernan is financing this effort in a very substantial way.

BIG MONEY IN A SMALL LOCAL RACE

There is a substantial difference between a resident writing a $250 campaign check and one individual putting $49,000 into a committee organized around defeating a single councilmember.

That is not casual participation.

It is a serious political expenditure.

A former chief executive understands money, strategy and the deployment of resources toward an objective. Executives do not generally commit substantial resources to objectives they consider meaningless.

So what makes defeating Michael Cao important enough to McKernan to justify $49,000?

And how much influence should any one wealthy individual be able to purchase in the political conversation surrounding a neighborhood-level election?

Money can finance repeated mail pieces. It can buy advertising. It can pay consultants. It can amplify a political message until one person's resources produce a voice vastly louder than those of ordinary residents.

That is precisely why voters should examine the money behind the message rather than simply consuming the message itself.

A large political check should never be confused with broad community sentiment.

CAO HAS A RECORD. VOTERS CAN JUDGE IT.

Cao is the incumbent, elected in 2022. He is a physician and former United States Air Force Major who served 10 years on active duty. According to the City of Arcadia, Cao deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and led a Critical Care Airlift Team treating and evacuating wounded servicemembers. He later taught medicine at USC and established a private medical practice.

Whatever voters think about Cao’s politics, his record is something they can examine. He has occupied the seat. He has cast votes. He has made decisions. He can be questioned about them.

Then there is his challenger, Steve Rhee.

Rhee is running in District 5 in 2026. But two years ago, he was running somewhere else.

District 4.

And then there is the detail that makes the electoral map considerably more interesting: Rhee has been a District 2 resident.

For readers attempting to keep their districts straight, the political itinerary is becoming difficult to miss: District 2 resident. District 4 candidate in 2024. District 5 candidate in 2026.

Arcadia’s official 2024 election results show Rhee challenged incumbent Paul Cheng for the District 4 council seat and lost decisively. Cheng received 2,728 votes to Rhee’s 1,173.

Two years later, Rhee is back, this time seeking a seat representing District 5.

That history deserves more attention than it has received.

Arcadia moved to district elections for a reason. A district councilmember is supposed to provide geographically focused representation to the residents of that district. District lines are not interchangeable political lanes for candidates searching for the next available seat.

So voters are entitled to ask Rhee a simple question:

Why District 5 now?

What changed between 2024 and 2026?

Why was District 4 the community he sought to represent two years ago, while District 5 is the community he now seeks to represent?

Rhee says on his campaign website that District 5 is home to families, businesses, schools and neighborhoods he wants to serve. He also says he is self-funding his campaign and accepting no campaign contributions because he does not want responsibility to donors or outside interests.

That makes another question unavoidable.

“NO SPECIAL INTERESTS”—BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MONEY ATTACKING YOUR OPPONENT?

While Rhee emphasizes independence from donors, a separately registered political committee has emerged with a name devoted explicitly to defeating his opponent, and McKernan has supplied it with $49,000.

There is no evidence in the filing itself establishing that Rhee controls the committee, directed McKernan's contribution or coordinated its activities. It would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise without evidence.

But independence does not make the committee irrelevant.

It makes following its money even more important.

Who created “Arcadia Deserves Better”?

Who recruited McKernan?

Who decides what the committee says about Cao?

Who is being paid to produce its political material?

What does McKernan expect politically from Cao’s defeat?

Are more large contributions coming?

And will the committee disclose spending approaching, or exceeding, the amount McKernan has already put into it?

These are not fringe questions. They go directly to who is attempting to shape a local election.

There is also an uncomfortable contradiction at the center of the broader political messaging.

Rhee's own campaign warns about outside agendas influencing decisions that should be made for Arcadia and says residents should not be pushed aside by interests that “don’t live here, don’t know us, and don’t serve us.”

Fine.

Then apply that principle consistently.

District 5 voters should know exactly who is spending large sums trying to determine who represents them, what those people want, and why.

McKernan's history makes the size of his contribution more, not less, worthy of scrutiny. This is someone who spent decades making high-level financial and strategic decisions. A former CEO understands the difference between a symbolic gesture and a serious investment.

$49,000 is a serious investment.

So what is the desired return?

Not a financial return. There is no evidence of that.

The question is political.

What outcome is important enough to McKernan that he is willing to put nearly $50,000 behind defeating Cao?

That is where this investigation should go next.

Every filing by Arcadia Deserves Better should be examined. Every contribution. Every expenditure. Every consultant. Every mail vendor. Every independent expenditure. Every amendment.

At the same time, Rhee should explain why voters who rejected his bid for District 4 representation in 2024 should view his District 5 candidacy two years later as a commitment to this particular district rather than another opportunity to obtain a council seat.

None of those questions predetermines an answer.

District elections are supposed to bring government closer to neighborhoods, not turn neighborhoods into political battlegrounds where the loudest voice belongs to whoever has the deepest pockets.

When a candidate moves from one district race to another and a wealthy former corporate executive simultaneously puts $49,000 into a committee devoted to defeating the incumbent in that new district, journalists should not look away because asking questions might make someone uncomfortable.

They should follow the records.

Follow the candidates.

And above all, follow the money.

Money can buy mailers. Money can buy advertising. Money can amplify attacks. It cannot buy the judgment of Arcadia residents.

And when nearly $50,000 from one individual is deployed to defeat one candidate for one neighborhood council seat, Arcadia should ask one final question:

HAS AN ARCADIA ELECTION REALLY COME DOWN TO WHO CAN WRITE THE BIGGEST CHECK?