FROM CONTRIBUTIONS PAGE 1 Contribution limits reviewed
CITY HALL With the cost of running a political campaign rising each year, elected officials are toying with the idea of revisiting Santa Monica’s standard $250 campaign contribution as part of an overall review of local election laws.
The issue was raised this week when the City Council voted 4 to 0 to have staff explore ways to publicly finance campaigns; better track contributions; and review the challenges of enforcing a law restricting the amount of money one can give to independent committees, a practice that has been challenged in court.
City Attorney Marsha Moutrie sparked the discussion when she informed the council about existing cases that have struck down similar limits on contributions because the $250 limit, in place since 1992, was deemed to be too low for candidates to effectively finance their campaigns.
Moutrie said raising the limit by $100 or so would help avoid any legal entanglements, especially if the council decides to restrict contributions to independent expenditure committees.
Under local law, people are prohibited from giving more than $250 to any candidate, committee controlled by a candidate and any uncontrolled committee, such as Santa Monicans for Renters Rights (SMRR) and Santa Monicans for Sensible Priorities, two independent committees that played a significant role in the last election.
For years, SMRR has complained about the City Attorney’s reluctance to enforce the law as they watched other committees accept checks in excess of $15,000 or more.
Moutrie, admitting that she had made a mistake during a public forum on the electoral process, said Tuesday that indeed the law restricts contributions to independent committees, but that it hasn’t been enforced because existing case law makes it problematic. She said that if the council were to raise the $250 limit, then perhaps they could restrict contributions to independent committees without drawing too much attention or opposition.
“We really think that you should give serious consideration to increasing the contribution limit in Santa Monica, because there is a growing body of case law that strikes down contribution limits that are so low they limit the candidates’ ability to get the word out,” Moutrie said.
Mayor Richard Bloom agreed, saying an increase was long overdue given increases in postage and printing costs as well as fees charged by campaign consultants.
“I do believe that we should have a modest increase, because it hasn’t been indexed over all these years,” Bloom said. “If we raised it to $300 and indexed it in the future, it would be a step in the right direction.”
Others weren’t as enthusiastic, including former Mayor Denny Zane, co-founder of SMRR, Santa Monica’s ruling political party which spends thousands of dollars each election cycle supporting candidates for public office. Zane said that the $250 limit has not stopped candidates from raising over $100,000 during recent elections.
By not enforcing the limit on independent committees, Zane said inaction has breed “cynicism in the body politic” and that is where efforts should be focused.
“We should make sure we are enforcing the law so the community doesn’t feel cynical about city staff or the council’s intentions,” Zane said.
Considering that the agenda item wasn’t discussed until midnight, three members of the council were not present at the time of its presentation; Mayor Pro Tem Herb Katz, and Council members Bob Holbrook and Bobby Shriver. Bloom suggested that the item be discussed earlier during the meeting and that nothing specific should be approved until the absent members had an opportunity to hear the specifics of the plan. It just so happens that the three members absent are not aligned with SMRR while the four members who were on the dais have been supported by the influential, independent committee.
As far as public financing, many speakers threw their support behind such a plan and one group, Vote 4 Santa Monica, presented its own framework.
Council member Pam O’Connor raised serious questions about public financing, such as where would the money to fund such a program come from.
She also had concerns about how many signatures had to be collected in order for someone to qualify for public money. If the threshold is set too high, that could discourage those who are running for the first time and do not have the connections seasoned politicos do. If the threshold is set too low, then anybody could qualify and costs would skyrocket, she said.
“We talk about unmet capital needs, we can’t hire staff, we have limited resources…,”O’Connor said.“We have to figure out how it will be paid for.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 25, 2007. Read the original PDF.