Public may be asked to cover the costs of running for office
CITY HALL While it may be a sound theory, elected officials are still leery of using tax dollars to fund political campaigns.
Instead of drafting a plan for public financing, the City Council on Tuesday, by a 5-1 vote, opted to take things slow, instructing the city clerk to hold a series of community meetings to further probe the notion, in addition to other ways of protecting the democratic process.
While most supported the concept of “voter-owned elections” and the goal of limiting the influence special interest groups have on local races, several council members expressed concern about the potential cost of such an endeavor, citing a city staff report that estimated a price tag of at least $1.8 million per election if 18 candidates were to participate in the voluntary program.
That figure doesn’t include the cost of administering the program, which would require routine audits, the distribution of funds under strict guidelines, and monitoring expenditures made by both participating and non-participating candidates.
“There are a lot of things that need to be fleshed out, but I think it’s worth working with the public to come up with a community concept,” said Mayor Pro Tem Herb Katz.
The council also instructed the city attorney’s office to present information on legal decisions related to regulating independent expenditure committees and raising the local campaign contribution limit of $250 per person. There was also some talk about ranked voting to help increase the number of votes cast in each election.
A schedule for the community meetings has not yet been set, but they could take place as early as mid-May, said City Clerk Maria Stewart.
Stewart presented a public financing option that could go before the voters for approval by the end of the year. Under the proposal, candidates would have to raise $3,000 in qualifying contributions over three months to receive $50,000 in public money. Prospective candidates could raise a minimum of $5 per person or a maximum of $30.
Once certified, a candidate would receive $50,000 in public funds. Candidates may also receive an additional $50,000, which would be used to respond to non-participating candidates and special interests groups that have spent more than $50,000.
Still, many questions remain, such as would any resident be able to contribute to qualifying candidates or only registered voters. Also, would City Hall pay for it with money from the general fund or from a new tax?
“I don’t mean to be pouring water on the enthusiasm,” said Councilman Bobby Shriver. “It’s easy to say you are for it, but when you get to the details and actually see what this would cost... you have to ask, how do people feel about spending a few million bucks a year?
“That’s how we should put it.” Judging from the more than 30 speakers in support of the concept, it seems the public is in favor of spending their tax dollars on making elections more equitable. Residents pointed to the city clerk’s report, which showed special interest groups spent an average of $136,424 during the November 2006 election, while candidates spent an average of $42,974.
“Public financing of campaigns allows for more women and minority candidates to enter the political arena... and restores public confidence in elected office,” said Amy Bishop-Dunbar, president of the League of Women Voters in Santa Monica.
“Public financing would make it so that people who may not necessarily have the access to money, would be able to show that they support their community by full public funding of elections,” said Daisy Furlong, who is not old enough yet to vote, but is very much in favor of clean money. “That way, people will be able to take issues they have at heart and bring them out to help make the community a better place.”
Several organizations, including all five neighborhood groups, the Center for Governmental Studies and the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, endorsed the concept of public financing, with many promising to lend a hand in developing a proposal to put before voters.
The tone of the last election for City Council prompted many residents to come forward in support. Several spoke about the negative campaigning they saw on behalf of special interest groups such as Santa Monicans for Sensible Priorities, which waged a campaign against Councilman Kevin McKeown, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on mailers and campaign commercials blasting his record while on the dais.
Council members were quick to point out that courts have ruled against any attempts to regulate campaigns run by independent expenditure committees, saying that is a violation of free speech. Shriver said repeatedly that any public financing proposal would not eliminate negative campaigning or the number of mailers one receives each election cycle.
“It is important to know that people with their own money can spread malicious rumors, and horrible stuff will continue as often as they want,” Shriver said.“Under federal law, that cannot be regulated. I think it’s important to note that there was not a lot of intra-candidate nastiness.”
No one was willing to go so far as to say that special interest groups and negative campaigning has put a stranglehold on the local political process, but there are those who are worried about what the future may hold.
“If we don’t figure out a way to make elections work for residents and the candidacy for City Council more inviting, we will lose good candidates... lose control over our own elections,” McKeown said. “We need to not focus tonight on a specific solution. We’re not there yet. But are we willing to commit ourselves to this process.”
Councilman Bob Holbrook wasn’t. The former mayor cast the lone vote against moving forward with the concept, citing concerns about cost. Holbrook also questioned the ability of participating candidates to respond quickly enough to moves by nonparticipating candidates who can maneuver faster since they are spending their own money and do not have to wait for City Hall to disperse funds.
“All this will do is allow for more people to run, but it won’t change the outcome,” Holbrook said. “None of them would win except for those people who have the (political action committee) support on top of their own campaign dollars. PAC support is so significant in this town. It has been that way for every single election that I’ve been in.”
Holbrook was the only candidate elected last November who was not endorsed by Santa Monicans for Renters Rights, the city’s ruling political party.
“The bottom line is that there are other ways to promote democracy in Santa Monica and this is not the way to do it,” Holbrook said. “It is very expensive and at the end of the day, a significant amount of public money will be spent. You can’t have any type of competitive election as long as a single PAC is out there.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 15, 2007. Read the original PDF.