June 2008 - Voterowned - list.sfgreens.org

WE NEED EMAILS ASAP! McGoldrick planning to support fund raid!
by Rob Arnow, Voter Owned Elections 29 Jun '08

29 Jun '08

Deeply passionate defenders of democratic institutions ~ *The bad news is that Supervisor Jake McGoldrick is actively planning to support the proposal to raid the public campaign financing fund.* If he does not change his position we will lose the vote at budget committee later this week and that will likely lead to a loss at the full Board as well, probably the following Tuesday./ (The good news is that Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi will now definitely vote against the fund raid -- though he has not yet spoken out strongly against it -- if you want to encourage him to do so, it might help sway Jake.)/ McGoldrick has said directly that he is resistant to changing his position, and so our only hope at this point is a massive outpouring of support. *If you work at or use a program that depends on City funding, your voice will be very, very important* -- perhaps the only one he will listen to now. Please let me know if you do, and we can figure out the best way to contact him. *If you know Supervisor McGoldrick, please contact him in the most personal way you know how -- and *if you think you can help us to set up a meeting with him, please let us know, since its unclear that he has even considered our point of view seriously.* If any case, please email Supervisor McGoldrick* [ jake.mcgoldrick(a)sfgov.org ]* right away, using the following talking points: /Please BCC me, so I know how we're doing. We need lots, really. This is very serious./*/* */ . To believe the mayor's promises is unwise. The mayor has always opposed the public financing program and tried to raid the fund just nine months ago, when there was no budget deficit. If you want to find out how well the mayor follows through on his deals, ask Susan Leal and Tony Hall. . Do not join with public financing opponents in helping tilt the playing field in favor of candidates backed by big money, special-interest contributors. . Public campaign financing is one of the best ways to ensure adequate funding for education, health care, and other human needs. By ensuring candidates are accountable only the public, rather than big money interests, who demand expensive legislative favors, public campaign financing is the best thing we can do for the budget in the long run. . The incentive to deny candidates access to $5 million in campaign funds is tremendous. The Mayor, nor any other politician for that matter, is likely to hesitate to break a promise with that much at stake. . The current proposal to remove $5 million from the public campaign financing fund would result in a $1.7 million - $4.3 million shortfall in the next mayor's race. This is not a possibility, but a near certainty, according to Ethics Commission spending projections. . The Mayor has offered to ensure "adequate" funds for the future, but has offered no specifics on what he considers adequate, in writing or otherwise. Has Jake received commitments on those details? Has he asked? . The Mayor so far has offered no guarantees in writing. Furthermore, even an amendment to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance would not be legally binding, as budget authority is granted in the charter and would override an ordinance. The only legally binding mechanism, would be a charter amendment to ensure funding, which the Mayor's office has actively declined to support. At the very least, Jake should demand a letter supporting a charter amendment to ensure funding be set-aside according to funding levels described in the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance.

1 0

URGENT: We need emails to the Supes! Raid is still on the table.
by Rob Arnow, Voter Owned Elections 26 Jun '08

26 Jun '08

*Stalwart defenders of democracy ~* The budget committee met yesterday and those who should be supporting us are wavering, at best. This will come up for a vote as early as next Thursday and we need you to contact the Supes! Supervisor Jake McGoldrick openly expressed initial support for the proposal, while Ross Mirkarimi indicated an openness to it. The only person firmly on our side now is Chris Daly. We'll need all 3 of these Supervisors to prevent this from passing -- and we'll need them within the next few days -- this will likely come up for a vote late next week. We can sway them, but they'll need to hear from us. *Can you email or call Jake McGoldrick and Ross Mirkarimi? *Please BCC me, or let me know if you've called. Jake McGoldrick: Jake.McGoldrick(a)sfgov.org --- 554-7410 Ross Mirkarimi: Ross.Mirkarimi(a)sfgov.org ---- 554-7630 Ask them to please vote against proposal to raid the public financing fund, because nothing short of a charter amendment on the ballot can legally guarantee the return of the money.While the tone has changed a bit, and the Supervisors are now asking for guarantees in writing (thanks to our work), we know that a letter, or even a normal ordinance would have no force of law to compel the funding. To take this money out now is to gamble the future of this program on a promise made by people who do not support public campaign financing, and have tried to raid the fund before. *Mayor's office tried the raid the fund last September -- when there was no budget shortfall. * When the legislation creating the mayoral public campaign financing program was first put forward in 2005, the mayor was not supportive of our efforts <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/08/BAG3SH4R6R1.DTL>. Then, last September, with no budget shortfall, a proposal was put forward by the mayor to take money from the public financing program, to give to a program called SF Promise. What was most concerning about this proposal was that although the proposed cost of the first year of SF Promise was only $525,000, the mayor suggested taking $6 million from the public financing fund to pay for it. You can read these numbers in their own press release: http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_index.asp?id=67895 While the proponents will claim that having it writing would politically force the Mayor and Board to fund the program in the future, the reality is that in politics $5 million in campaign money is worth a lot more than a broken promise. And with a new Board of Supervisors coming in, there's no guarantee that they would support future appropriations, even if the mayor does.* Does not allow enough money for future races. * According to numbers presented by Ethics Director St. Croix, were this proposal to pass, the 2011 mayoral race will almost certainly be severely underfunded. Ethics Commission projections show a $1.7 million - $4.3 million shortfall, just to meet the baseline amount needed for the program. In order to avoid this, there would have to be a supplemental appropriation of $1.7 million - $4.3 million in 2 years (fiscal year 2010-2011). If you add the normal appropriation to the supplemental, there would have be $3.5 million - $6 million appropriated in the 2010-2011 budget cycle, just to meeet minimum baseline funding. *Elected officials should not have discretion in determining public funding levels on an annual basis.* Because there are incentives for incumbents to defund public financing programs in order to discourage potential challengers, funding levels should be set by policy, and not tinkered with on an annual basis. To open the door to this is to set a dangerous precedent for the future, irrespective of the merits of the proposal in the short term. *The proposed $5 million cut comes out to a 250%, or a 2.5 year cut in funding, which is far greater than other programs face. * Cuts should be in line with cuts to other programs, which often fall between 5% - 20%. The Ethics Commission budget, for example, is only being cut by $5,000. In addition, $2.75 per San Francisco resident, the annual funding level suggested in the legislation, comes out to approximately $2 million. Since only $1.8 million has been budgeted this year, the funding is already reduced by 10% * There is already a mechanism to return unused funds to the general fund. * The Ethics Commission and Board have already agreed that a $13.5 million cap was enough to ensure reliable funding for candidates, while not hoarding excessive funds. To reduce a fund with a cap of $13.5 million to $4.3 million is a risky maneuver. If the fund cap is too high, then that should be reduced as a policy matter, rather than simply removing large amounts of funds on a discretionary basis.

1 0

Victory at Ethics!
by Rob Arnow, Voter Owned Elections 24 Jun '08

24 Jun '08

Defenders of a government of, by and for the people ~ We made a strong showing at Ethics today and the proposal to raid the public campaign financing fund was defeated -- for now. There were at least 14 of us in attendance for an early morning meeting, and all spoke very eloquently on the matter. Ultimately, our arguments triumphed over those of the mayor's representative, Phil Ginsberg, who had much longer to speak and respond to questions than any of us. His arguments were not compelling to the commissioners, perhaps in part, because they were filled with blatant untruths. While he claimed numerous times that the projections of the Ethics Commission showed adequate funding for upcoming elections were this proposal to pass, the reality was that these very numbers showed a $1.7 million - $4.3 million shortfall in the 2011 mayoral race. He also consistently claimed that the mayor's office was legally bound to provide future funding, even as the City Attorney on hand directly contradicted him multiple times. The vote breakdown was going to be 2-to-2, but it was not taken, as that would have been seen as a defeat for the raid proponents. Our friendliest commissioner was on vacation, and with her, we would have had a majority. I ran into the Mayor's representative in City Hall after the vote, and it seems as if, unfortunately, they may come back for a second try. I'll let you all know if that happens. We are going to put a Charter Amendment on the ballot within the next couple of years to protect the fund for good, but its too late for this election unfortunately, unless someone wants to fund the collection of 42,000 signatures within the next two weeks ; ) Commissioners Emi Gusukuma and Charles Ward both made strong arguments and ultimately went with us, while Susan Harriman and Jamienne Studley were against us. Thank you everyone for working so hard to protect the program, which we worked so hard to create. Those who stepped up for the cause early in the AM were -- Hal Looby, Vicky Liu, Patrick Doyle, Bob Planthold, Sonny Angulo, Matt Miley, Charles Kalish, Michael Goldstein, Barry Hermanson, Joe Lynn, Dave Wilbur and others -- please email me to let me know who I missed -- there were a couple people there I didn't know. Rob Arnow San Franciscans for Voter Owned Elections www.voterownedelections.org 415-552-2229

1 0

REMINDER: Tomorrow morn., 8:30AM sharp, Ethics hearing to defend public financing fund!
by Rob Arnow, Voter Owned Elections 23 Jun '08

23 Jun '08

Defenders of clean elections -- WHAT: Stop a raid on the public campaign financing fund! WHEN: TOMORROW! (Tuesday the 24th) 8:30AM sharp. WHERE: Room 416, City Hall PLEASE RSVP: We'll need lots of people there We did an analysis of the impact if this proposal passes, and it turns that if $5 million is removed from the fund there will not be enough to even come close to covering the baseline amount of funding necessary for the next mayoral race. We would be gambling the program on uncertain promises to return the money at a later date. *While most programs are being cut between 5% - 20%, the Mayor is proposing a 250% cut to the public financing fund* -- not just cutting our annual allocation, but actually removing 2.5 years of allocations out of the fund in one fell swoop. The fund, which now covers both mayoral and supervisorial elections, would be reduced in size from $9.3M to $4.3M. According to the Director of Ethics Commission, just to meet the minimum baseline funding for the next mayoral race would require no fund raids after this year, continued baseline funding, AND will require a large and uncertain supplemental appropriation. The Ethics Commission has called a special meeting to consider whether to give their blessing to this plan this Tuesday morning at 8:30am, and we need the help of all of you, to soundly defeat this proposal. This one is going to be difficult, truly, so please make it. Our most friendly commissioner is on vacation, and the mayor's appointee will probably be against us, leaving 3 votes up for grabs. We need a majority to take the wind out of the sails of this plan. A special meeting was called for this item, so it will be the only thing on the agenda, meaning it shouldn't take a huge amount of your time. Can you make it? This is an important one. Please RSVP and let me know. P.S. We will be putting forth a ballot initiative to secure the funding in the future, but in the mean time, we need to defend what's there. Rob Arnow San Franciscans for Voter Owned Elections www.voterownedelections.org 415-552-2229

1 0

URGENT ALERT: Tues. Morning - Stop another raid on the the public financing fund!
by Rob Arnow, Voter Owned Elections 21 Jun '08

21 Jun '08

Defenders of clean elections -- WHAT: Stop a raid on the public campaign financing fund! WHEN: This Tuesday morning, the 24th, 8:30AM sharp WHERE: Room 416, City Hall PLEASE RSVP: We'll need lots of people there Even as we get traction in our efforts to help pass a federal public campaign funding bill, our public funding system in San Francisco is under threat. Last year, Mayor Newsom, who has not supported our efforts to bring cleanly financed elections to San Francisco, tried to raid the public campaign financing fund. Back then, there was no budget shortfall, and so a program was created, "SF Promise," whose funding it was said, would be taken from the public financing fund. Even though the cost of this program was only $525,000 in the first year, the Mayor proposed removing $6 million from the public financing fund for it. You can read these numbers in their own press release <http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_index.asp?id=67895>. But with the help of Supervisor Peskin, we funded SF Promise from the general fund reserve, and the plan was defeated. But, now that we have a budget shortfall, they're back again. *While most programs are being cut between 5% - 20%, the Mayor is proposing a 300% cut to the public financing fund* -- not just cutting our annual allocation, but actually removing 2 years of allocations out of the fund in one fell swoop. The fund, which now covers both mayoral and supervisorial elections, would be reduced in size from $9.3M to $4.3M. According to the Director of Ethics Commission, just to meet the minimum baseline funding for the next mayoral race would require no fund raids after this year, continued baseline funding, AND will probably require a supplemental appropriation. The Ethics Commission has called a special meeting to consider whether to give their blessing to this plan this Tuesday morning at 8:30am, and we need the help of all of you, to soundly defeat this proposal. This one is going to be difficult, truly, so please make it. Our most friendly commissioner is on vacation, and the mayor's appointee will probably be against us, leaving 3 votes up for grabs. We need a majority to take the wind out of the sails of this plan. A special meeting was called for this item, so it will be the only thing on the agenda, meaning it shouldn't take a huge amount of your time. Can you make it? This is an important one. Please RSVP and let me know. Otherwise, I'll have to spend all day phone banking on Monday : ) Rob Arnow San Franciscans for Voter Owned Elections www.voterownedelections.org 415-552-2229

1 0

Federal "Clean Money" Making Serious Strides! Meeting Next Monday.
by Rob Arnow, Voter Owned Elections 17 Jun '08

17 Jun '08

Champions of democracy ~ *Our Bay Area (and CA) portion of the campaign to pass the Fair Elections Now Act is picking up serious steam.* In the last couple of weeks our work has led to: . /California Democratic Party/ passing a resolution in favor of public funding for federal congressional candidates. . /San Francisco Democratic Party/ unanimously passing a resolution endorsing the Fair Elections Now Act. . /California Young Democrats/ endorsing the Fair Elections Now Act. . /Charlie Couric, Founder and past President of Brita/ (the water filtration company), and also the Obama Campaign Bay Area Finance Committee Co-chair, joining our list of nationally prominent business supporters. . /San Francisco 4 Democracy/ and /Richmond District Democratic Club/ endorsing the bill. . These endorsements join those of /Small Business Majority/ and the /League of Young Voters/ which we mentioned in our previous email. *MEETING:* *Next Monday, June 23rd, 6pm* 24 Landers St. (right near Church and Market) This our first meeting, and any and all topics are open for discussion. In particular, we will brief you all on the other leads we are following up on (of which there are many), and can give a rundown on how we got to where we are right now. We'll also give information on how the campaign is going nationally. We'll take your suggestions, network and hang out with the other people who are helping out on this effort, and whatever else you want to talk about. We'll keep it efficient and interesting, and have some organic snacks for your eating pleasure. Everyone is invited, even if you're just interested in learning more. Please RSVP if you think you know you're coming in advance, and give me a call with any questions at 415-552-2229. Rob Arnow -- Robert Arnow Common Cause Fair Elections Now Act, Advocate 415-552-2229

1 0