July 2008 - Voterowned - list.sfgreens.org

A disappointing outcome... and next steps
by Rob Arnow, Voter Owned Elections 23 Jul '08

23 Jul '08

Weary lovers of democracy ~ The Board of Supervisors today voted today to remove $5 million from the public campaign financing fund. After all the work we put in to try to stop this ill-advised plan, it was disappointing, though I was still impressed and inspired by how many people took the time to help try to sway the Supervisors on this matter. The Supervisors themselves commented that they had received lots of contacts from constituents on the matter. Moving forward, we are planning to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot to protect the funds in the long term. In the near future, we are going to be seeking signed pledges from candidates for Supervisor in regards to this legislation and support for public campaign financing in general, should they be elected. We will be teaming up with other election reform organizations to distribute the results of the pledge to San Francisco voters. If anyone would like to assist with contacting candidates in regards to these pledges, please let me know. We want to do all we can to ensure a pro-public campaign financing majority on the Board of Supervisors into the future. This will be the first stage in a campaign to protect these funds -- and ultimately to expand the program to full public campaign financing for all City offices. Ultimately, Tom Ammiano, Chris Daly, Ross Mirkarimi, and Aaron Peskin supported us -- while the other 7 Supervisors -- Jake McGoldrick Gerardo Sandoval, Bevan Dufty, Sophie Maxwell, Sean Elsbernd, Carmen Chu, and Michaela Alioto-Pier voted against us. They even voted against a compromise proposal that would have only removed $3 million, instead of $5 million from the fund. While some of those who voted against us do not support public campaign financing at all, several others had cut deals to fund projects in their districts, which they were threatened with losing if they voted for this. The Mayor and Jake McGoldrick were ultimately the most responsible -- having been the ones to threaten the others with financial, political payback. And all those who voted in favor, were at best guilty of short term thinking -- not being able to see that this manuever was penny-wise and pound-foolish -- opening the door to a very dangerous precedent, and diminishing substantially the amount of money available for the next mayor's race, for a small amount of one-time funds. Thank you all again for the all the hard work on this issue. Its a disappointing setback, but will not disuade us in the long-term. Again, if you're interested in helping out with candidate pledges, please let me know. Rob Arnow San Franciscans for Voter Owned Elections www.voterownedelections.org 415-552-2229

1 0

Do you know Maxwell, Dufty or Sandoval?
by Rob Arnow, Voter Owned Elections 17 Jul '08

17 Jul '08

Proud citizens of our democracy ~ Do you know (or do you know someone who knows) Supervisors Maxwell, Dufty or Sandoval? There will an amendment to the budget introduced next Tuesday at the full Board of Supervisors. If this amendment fails, $5 million will be removed from the public campaign financing fund. Can you let us know if you have a connection to these Supervisors that you, or we, could follow up on? Please contact us ASAP if you do. Thanks, Rob Arnow San Franciscans for Voter Owned Elections www.voterownedelections.org 415-596-5808

1 0

Time to Pour on the Pressure!
by Rob Arnow, Voter Owned Elections 10 Jul '08

10 Jul '08

Diligent Defenders of Democracy ~ *Its time to pour on the pressure.* We need tons of email to the swing Supervisors immediately, letting them know that we don't want to see the public campaign financing fund raided. As expected, we found out yesterday that this will indeed pass out of Budget Committee to the full Board of Supervisors, so we'll need to win the fight there. Over a dozen of us spoke eloquently at the Budget hearing, and then visited Supervisors offices en masse. It made a strong impression, but we need much more. This will go to the full Board on July 22, just over a week from now. Right now, it seems we have 4 votes, and we'll need to get to 6. /Media on this issue:/ Our op-ed in the Guardian <http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=6651&catid=4&volume_id=317&issue_id=…> BeyondChron article <http://beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5851#more> Examiner Article <http://www.examiner.com/a-1480874%7EUse_of_public_finance_dollars_raises_co…> *Contact the swing Supervisors! (and BCC me or let me know you've called) * Let them know that they should oppose the proposal to raid the public campaign financing fund (see more detailed talking points below) Gerardo Sandoval 554-6975 gerardo.sandoval(a)sfgov.org Bevan Dufty bevan.dufty(a)sfgov.org 554-6968 Sophie Maxwell sophie.maxwell(a)sfgov.org 554-7670 ------------------------------------ *Would result in severe underfunding for future races* According to Ethics Commission spending projections, were this proposal to pass and the funds not be returned at a later date, the 2011 mayoral race would be $1.5 million - $4.3 million short of the $6 million minimum needed for a mayoral race, assuming the program receives full funding in upcoming years and that there are no additional raids on the fund. *Don't sweep this under the rug* In order to make up the shortfall would require a $3.3 - $6 million appropriation to the program in 2010. With no prospects of an improving budget situation, this is unlikely to occur, and if does, will be an even greater strain on the budget. This proposal doesn't create new money, it simply moves it around in a way that will create further problems in the future. * * * Sets a dangerous precedent * The logic of taking money out of the fund based on a budget shortfall will leave the program bankrupt. With budget shortfalls likely to continue into the near future, even if no more money is removed, it's unlikely that the program would receive full appropriations, plus the necessary supplementals. It's also poor public policy to have sitting politicians setting the specific level of funding for public campaign funding programs on an annual basis, since in general, publicly funded elections threaten incumbents by enabling less well-financed competitors to compete on a level playing field. Opening the door to this now will likely lead to renewed proposals to raid the fund on an annual basis. *No guarantee of return of the funds* Nothing short of a Charter Amendment approved by voters can legally guarantee the return of the funds, since the Charter grants budget authority to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. An amendment to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance has no legally binding mechanisms as it relates to budgetary matters. *Much larger cut than other programs *The $5 million cut is equivalent to 2.5 years of funding for this program, or a 250% cut. In fact, the $1.8M appropriated this year is already about 10% short of what the formula suggested in the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance recommends. *Public campaign financing saves money in the long run *By reducing the pay-to-play dynamic, where politicians feel incentives to give costly legislative favors to campaign contributors, public campaign financing saves far more than it costs in the long run. Our organization found $70 million in media-documented giveaways to campaign contributors in the space of just a few years, before the public funding program went into effect. Check out our examples: http://voterownedelections.org/save_money.html ------------------ Robert Arnow San Franciscans for Voter Owned Elections www.voterownedelections.org 415-552-2229

1 0

Turnout NEEDED: Wed. 1PM, and need emails to other Supes!
by Rob Arnow, Voter Owned Elections 08 Jul '08

08 Jul '08

Valiant and tireless defenders of democracy ~ If the proposal to raid the public campaign financing fund passes the Budget Committee this Wednesday, it will go to the full Board of Supervisors next Tuesday. At this point, it's looking like it will probably pass Budget, but our turnout is still very important, as the other Supervisors watch the hearings on city hall TV and will very much notice if we have a bunch of people there. We are now in a time crunch and need to act on both fronts simultaneously -- meaning, we also need to immediately start contacting the swing Supervisors to ensure that even if this passes budget, that it does not pass the full Board. Please RSVP for Wednesday, and BCC me on any emails to the Supes. *1. Budget Committee Hearing This Wednesday (July 9), 1pm *(make a public comment, and leave early if you need to) City Hall, Board of Supervisors Chambers * 2. Email and call the following Supervisors* Let them know that they should oppose the proposal to raid the public campaign financing fund (see more detailed talking points below) Bevan Dufty bevan.dufty(a)sfgov.org 554-6968 Sophie Maxwell sophie.maxwell(a)sfgov.org 554-7670 Gerardo Sandoval 554-6975 gerardo.sandoval(a)sfgov.org *Would result in severe underfunding for future races* According to Ethics Commission spending projections, were this proposal to pass and the funds not be returned at a later date, the 2011 mayoral race would be $1.5 million - $4.3 million short of the $6 million minimum needed for a mayoral race, assuming the program receives full funding in upcoming years and that there are no additional raids on the fund. In order to make up the shortfall would require a $3.3 - $6 million appropriation to the program in fiscal year 2010-2011. With no prospects of an improving budget situation, this is unlikely to occur. *What will happen next year?* The logic of taking money out of the fund based on a budget shortfall will leave the program bankrupt. With budget shortfalls likely to continue into the near future, even if no more money is removed, it's unlikely that the program would receive full appropriations, plus the necessary supplementals. * * * Sets a dangerous precedent * It's poor public policy to have sitting politicians setting the specific level of funding for public campaign funding programs on an annual basis, since in general, publicly funded elections threaten incumbents by enabling less well-financed competitors to compete on a level playing field. Opening the door to this now will likely lead to renewed proposals to raid the fund on an annual basis. *No guarantee of return of the funds* Nothing short of a Charter Amendment approved by voters can legally guarantee the return of the funds, since the Charter grants budget authority to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. An amendment to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance has no legally binding mechanisms as it relates to budgetary matters. *This proposal has not come with any specific timelines or amounts * While there has been talk of ensuring "adequate" funding for the program in the future, there have been no specific details given of what adequate means, and when that would be determined. *Much larger cut than other programs *The $5 million cut is equivalent to 2.5 years of funding for this program, or a 250% cut. In fact, the $1.8M appropriated this year is already about 10% short of what the formula suggested in the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance recommends. *Public campaign financing saves money in the long run *By reducing the pay-to-play dynamic, where politicians feel incentives to give costly legislative favors to campaign contributors, public campaign financing saves far more than it costs in the long run. Our organization found $70 million in media-documented giveaways to campaign contributors in the space of just a few years, before the public funding program went into effect. Check out our examples: http://voterownedelections.org/save_money.html ------------------ Robert Arnow San Franciscans for Voter Owned Elections www.voterownedelections.org 415-552-2229

1 0