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@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.