Fair fight funds could level political playing field in SM
(sub) Fair fight funds could level political playing field
By Kevin Herrera
Daily Press Staff Writer
CITY HALL — A fair fight and politics are two themes that don’t often converge in conversation, but they will tonight.
Residents are expected to ask the City Council to consider creating a “fair fight” fund for candidates who are attacked by independent expenditure committees that have the power to raise and spend and unlimited amount of money to influence the outcome of elections.
It is one idea out of many that the council will consider as it looks at the public financing of campaigns, an issue which has gathered steam since last November, when a group known as Santa Monicans for Sensible Priorities used more than $400,000 from the hospitality industry to run negative television ads targeting Councilman Kevin McKeown — the first time such ads were used in a local election, political observers said.
3AB,“In between the last two council races, independent expenditures went up by 300 percent,” said Brandon Marlowe, with Vote4SM, a group of residents who are working with clean money advocates on public financing in California. “This time, it was developers trying to knock off Kevin McKeown. Next time, who knows who is going to pile on millions of dollars to get their way in Santa Monica?
“This way, if a candidate is attacked by someone with deep pockets, they’ll have some support.”
“This way, if a candidate is attacked by someone with deep pockets, they’ll have some support.” — THIS TIME IT WAS DEVELOP- ERS TRYING TO KNOCK OFF KEVIN MCKEOWN. NEXT TIME WHO KNOWS WHO IS GOING TO PILE ON MILLIONS OF DOL- LARS TO GET THEIR WAY IN SANTA MONICA?” Brandon Marlowe Vote4SM
Under the fair fight proposal supported by Vote4SM, a candidate would receive public money only when an independent expenditure committee has spent a certain amount of money directly attacking that candidate. Details have yet to be worked out, but supporters are confident the council could come to a conclusion on what exactly an attack would be and how much would have to be spent on those attacks before a candidate became eligible to receive funds.
How the fair fight funding would be financed is also up for debate.
Denny Zane, co-founder of Santa Monicans for Renters Rights, the ruling political party in Santa Monica, said the organization’s steering committee is behind the fair fight funding proposal, even though candidates that SMRR does not support would be eligible for that money.
“(Negative campaigning) is not our style,” Zane said. “We don’t like to do it, but we have and we will if it is made necessary by outside expenditures.”
Zane, a former Santa Monica mayor, said fair fight funding fits the city because of the level of activism and engagement exhibited by its voters. That, along with a strict campaign contribution limit of $250 per person, has helped level the playing field, making public financing unnecessary. Candidates have raised more than $100,000 in elections past, showing that there is also no need for raising the contribution limit.
Fair fight funding is preferred because it could be something the council could approve without having to hold a costly election, however, that would mean voters would not be able to make the final decision. The plan is also free from legal challenges because it does not prevent independent expenditure committees or candidates from spending as much money as they can raise, something which is protected as free speech, Marlowe said.
A town that can’t be bought
The city’s top election officials have prepared a report for the council that includes five options for the council to consider in addition to fair fight funding. Most mirror a proposal that was submitted earlier this year.
Under most scenarios, a candidate wanting to participate in public financing would first have to raise qualifying contributions that could be anywhere from $500 to $2,000. The money would have to be raised in increments of $5, $10 or $20. Some of that could be used as seed money to keep the campaign afloat. Once the contributions are collected, candidates would receive a grant that could be as much as $40,000 or more.
Under some of the options, a second grant could be issued if an independent expenditure committee spent a certain amount of money on attack ads.
Another option would set a ceiling on how much a participating candidate could raise, but allow that candidate to accept contributions above the current limit of $250 per person. Dollar-to-dollar matching funds could be given to the candidate if independent committees spend over the grant limit.
Assuming that an average of 12 candidates would participate in the funding proposals each election cycle, the cost to taxpayers would be anywhere between $600,000 to $960,000, depending on which option is chosen.
To pay for public financing, residents could be asked to absorb higher taxes on luxury items such as high-performance vehicles or exotic leather and fur coats, or City Hall could raise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. City officials could also increase fines and fees; float a bond; charge candidates a “storage” fee when returning campaign signs posted illegally and removed by city staff; or take money from the General Fund, which pays for police, fire and other services.
Bob Stern with the Center for Governmental Studies, which advocates for public financing, said public financing could be paid for out of the General Fund, which sits at nearly $500 million, since it would represent only a small fraction of total money spent. The hard part would be getting the public to vote in favor of such a plan given the lack of a scandal locally that would trigger such support.
Last November’s negative campaign ads did strike a chord with many voters, but it remains to be seen if they were enough to make people want to reach deep into their own pockets, especially considering McKeown’s convincing victory at the polls in the face of the negative campaign waged against him.
“Santa Monica is very competitive politically and is one of the few cities where that is the case,” Stern said. “In Santa Monica’s case, it is SMRR verses the developers. That said, I think public financing would help bring in more candidates who aren’t aligned with either and make for an even more competitive race.”
Marlowe said the beauty about fair fight funding is that anyone who is attacked can access it, that includes those who are the target of SMRR.
212,“As citizens and an activist group, we want to get some kind of legacy for Santa Monica that says nobody can come in here with millions of dollars and buy public policy, buy our elections,” he said. “This (proposal) will not benefit one group or another. It is designed to benefit the future generations of Santa Monica.”
“This time it was developers trying to knock off Kevin McKeown. Next time who knows who is going to pile on millions of dollars to get their way in Santa Monica?”
Brandon Marlowe, Vote4SM.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 23, 2007. Read the original PDF.