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@sfgov.org 554-6968 Sophie Maxwell sophie.maxwell@sfgov.org 554-7670 Gerardo Sandoval 554-6975 gerardo.sandoval@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