> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Big spenders facing fair fight
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/big-spenders-facing-fair-fight/
- Published: 2007-02-27T16:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-24T00:09:12.000Z
- Author: Kevin Herrera
- Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*Campaign funding becoming public*

CITYWIDE Candidates with a wealth of experience, but lacking wealthy friends, may soon get a helping hand from their would-be constituents.

Santa Monica City Council hopefuls will be able to access as much as $100,000 in public money to counter campaigns run by wealthy residents and special interest groups under the public financing proposal drawn up by the city clerk and city attorney.

Those who support such a program, which would be voluntary, believe that it will reduce corruption or at the very least the appearance of corruption; broaden the diversity of candidates, making elections more competitive; enable candidates to spend less time fundraising and more time talking with residents; and possiblly reduce the overall cost of campaigning.

The draft proposal includes a $3,000 qualifying contribution from candidates to weed out those who are not serious about running. Qualifying contributions would be used by candidates to help pay for start-up costs only.

After qualifying, candidates would receive $50,000, with an additional $50,000 that could be used only to respond to non-participating opposing candidates that have spent more than $50,000, or to respond to independent expenditures, and only when the original grant amount has been exhausted.

Funding could come from a special tax, increased fees or from the general fund, which could result in a reduction in other city services. City staff is estimating a grant pool of $1.8 million, which would fund 18 candidates per election cycle.

The council is expected to discuss the proposal tonight. The ultimate decision will be left in the hands of voters. So far there is no word on whether or not public financing would be offered to candidates running for the rent control board.

“We are in strong support of public financing,” said Carmen Balber, a consumer advocate for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, which worked aggressively during the last municipal election to defeat a ballot measure they claimed would have weakened restrictions on campaign contributions. “We believe that public financing is a great way to address what has clearly been a concern of Santa Monica voters, and that is money having too great of an influence over campaigns.”

The power of special interest spending was a critical issue in the last election for City Council, with the hospitality industry spending nearly a half-million-dollars on cable television ads attacking incumbent Kevin McKeown, while promoting Councilman Bob Holbrook and newcomer Terry O’Day, a member of the Planning Commission.

There were residents who complained about the influence independent expenditure committees such as Santa Monicans for Sensible Priorities and Santa Monicans for Renters Rights were having on local elections where candidates are restricted in the amount of money — $250 — they can receive from each individual resident. While candidates are limited by fundraising limits, independent expenditure committees can raise as much money as they want from those same sources.

That led many to call for public financing of campaigns, whereby candidates are eligible to receive public funds to run a viable campaign for city office only if candidates agree to abide by certain conditions and expenditure limits. Candidates are also eligible to receive matching funds in the event that they are outspent by candidates who chose to go it alone or along with independent expenditure committees.

A review of money raised and spent during the last few election cycles shows that independent expenditures far outweighed those made by individual candidates. In 2006, candidates spent, on average, $42,974\. In that same year, independent expenditure committees, on average, spent more than $136,000 on each candidate they supported.

“The charts … clearly show that the amounts of money spent in Santa Monica campaigns over the last several cycles have escalated beyond what grassroots politics can sustain against big special interest money,” said McKeown, an advocate for public financing. “I’m concerned for what I call Santa Monica’s ‘political sustainability.’”

McKeown is concerned that residents will be discouraged from running because they will not be able to adequately respond to negative attacks and smear tactics often utilized by independents with deep pockets.

“Well-heeled special interests will continue trying to override residents’ interests if we don’t change a system that encourages nasty, negative campaigns,” McKeown said. “We won’t get thoughtful new candidates to run if they fear being personally smeared by money of a magnitude they cannot match.”

Those who have argued against public financing are worried that the independence of the political process will be compromised and are opposed to taxpayer money being used to promote certain political views. Independent expenditures would not be limited under the proposal.

“There are those who have called this welfare for politicians,” said Steve Levin, political reform project director for the Center for Governmental Studies, a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that studies and helps implement innovative approaches to improving social problems and the processes of self-government.“Some just don’t want to give politicians hard-earned taxpayer dollars to run for public office. There are also those who believe the money could better be used to put more cops on the street and fill potholes.”

Public financing is not new. The cities of Albuquerque, New Mexico and Portland, Oregon have enacted full public funding of campaigns. The states of Arizona, Maine and Vermont also have programs dating as far back as 1997.

Los Angeles has a matching funds program, but the City Council there is expected to review and receive public input for a proposed full-public-financing program in the near future, according to a city staff report.

Levin said more minorities are running for public office in Los Angeles because of public financing.

“You will often hear from these candidates that they never would have run before without public money because there was no way for them to compete,” Levin said.

There are additional costs associated with public financing aside from setting up a fund. Additional city staff would have to be hired to administer the program and keep a watchful eye on abuse. City staff has recommended the council consider creating a new division in the city clerk’s office that would oversee the program, with the finance department handling the financial, accounting and auditing aspects of the program.

After each election, participating candidates’ committees would have to be audited to assure that the funds were spent appropriately and any unspent funds be returned to the program’s account for future elections.

“We really don’t know what the additional costs would be,” said Assistant City Clerk Beth Sanchez. “We have asked for one additional staff person for the amount of work that would need to be handled during (an election).”

To have the program available to candidates during the next municipal election — November 2008 — a special election to put the question before voters would have to take place no later than March 2008.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 27, 2007.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/022707.pdf?ref=smdp.com)