Supporters of campaign finance reform ~
The public campaign financing program we all worked so hard to
implement for the mayoral race in San Francisco is currently under
threat from a proposal coming out of the mayor's office. The
proposal is to raid the fund and move half of the money to another
program. This has been in the works for a few weeks now, but I held off
on contacting you until I knew it was serious. On November 5, it seems
that this proposal is scheduled to be considered by the Ethics
Commission.
What? Defend public campaign financing from a raid on the fund
When? Early evening, Monday November 5
Please mark your calenders and save the date! After all the hard
and remarkably successful work we did over the course of an entire year
to bring public campaign financing to the mayor's race, we certainly
aren't going to let the fund be raided! So we need you all out to show
the Ethics Commission that San Francisco supports and is willing to
come out to protect campaign finance reform!
In the mean time, if you want to email or call the mayor's office and
tell them you object to this proposal that would be very useful as
well. It's possible if they receive enough opposition they will
withdraw the proposal. The number is (415) 554-6141 and the email
address is gavin.newsom@sfgov.org
If you have any questions, or would like to discuss this issue in
more detail, feel free to contact me at 415-596-5808 or
info@voterownedelections.org.
Below is a description to give you some
background.
Rob Arnow
San Franciscans for Voter Owned Elections
www.voterownedelections.org
Description of the proposal to raid the fund:
On Sept. 17, 2007, Mayor Newsom proposed raiding the Mayoral Public
Financing fund to pay for a college preparatory program called SF
Promise. Given the Mayor's opposition to public campaign financing in San
Francisco in the past, its unclear whether this proposal was
simply a case of good intentions misplaced, or an attack on campaign
finance reform hidden behind the needs of our City's children.
Because this
year's mayoral race has been relatively uncontested, and no one has
qualified for the funds, the Mayor claimed
that the money remaining in the fund could be reallocated to other
sources. Yet, a closer viewing of the legislation passed last year
shows that this supposedly unused money needs to remain in the fund
in order to ensure the effectiveness of the program in 2011.
Currently, each year, $2 per San Francisco resident, approximately $1.5
million, is put into the Mayoral Public Financing account. Any funds
remaining after an election are saved for the following election,
except that the fund can never exceed $12 million. This results in the
fund having a bare minimum of $6 million and a safe maximum of $12
million each 4-year election cycle. The mayor's proposal is to not
carry over any funds to the 2011 election, thereby reducing
the amount of funds which will be available to publicly financed
candidates by 50%. This puts the effectiveness of the program at risk
in what will likely be a hotly contested race for an open seat.
• Proposal sets a dangerous precedent
Public campaign financing, because of its ability to level the
playing field, is sometimes viewed as a threat by incumbents, of all
political stripes, who are usually the biggest fundraisers in a race.
To allow one-time raids on a public campaign financing program is to
open the door to case-by-base manipulations of the program when
incumbents feel their re-election is threatened. Clearly, that is not
the case here, but it set a dangerous precedent that could be abused in
the future.
• The Mayoral Public Financing program already has provisions
to return unused monies to the General Fund.
The
law already states that when the Mayoral Public Financing fund exceeds
$12 million any excess is returned to the General Fund to be used for
other purposes. This proposal does not create additional funds for
other purposes. Its simply diverts funding prematurely, before it's
known whether or not it will be needed.
• The proposal to raid the fund does not go after funds that aren’t
used, but after funds that are not yet used, putting the effectiveness
of the program at serious risk.
The proposal would effectively set funding at the minimal $6 million
level in 2011, which would reduce the amount available to
participating candidates by 50%. This would significantly
weaken the ability of the program to achieve its goal of leveling the
playing field in local elections.
• Public campaign financing will ensure budgets that adequately
fund education.
Public financing will result in a net savings of money in the long
run by reducing inappropriate favors that have taken place in the past
as a result of a pay-to-play political system. It will also reduce
waste by allowing politicians more time to focus on running government
rather than raising money. This is money that can be diverted to
education, clean streets, homelessness and the environment. To
undermine the public financing program for the supposed benefit of
education would end up having the opposite effect in the long term.
More
about how public campaign financing saves money
• The funding mechanisms of the Mayoral Public Financing program have
been carefully considered and vetted.
The
Mayoral Public Financing program was voted into law less than 2 years
ago by a unanimous Ethics Commission and 9 out of 11 of the members of
the Board of Supervisors. It earned the support of 52 organizations and
15 elected officials. Its funding provisions were carefully considered
and accepted at the time of passage, and it would be hasty and unwise
to alter those decisions before the program has been tested at least
once in a seriously contested election.
• Proposal will not actually guarantee funding for the other
programs.
The
financial future of other important programs should be based on a
consistent, long-term funding stream, not on a one-time raid on another
fund. Since the amount of money used in each election for public
financing will vary, any ongoing program that attempts to use this pot
of money for its funding will not have funding stability.
• Proposal to raid fund would be a blow to election reform.
Public
campaign financing ensures that the candidates elected are responsive
primarily to the needs of the public rather than private interests.
This latest proposal to reduce by half the available resources of the
program undermines that value and serves those would like to buy our
elections.