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@sfgov.org --- 554-7410
Ross Mirkarimi: Ross.Mirkarimi@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. 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.