*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 <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/08/BAG3SH4R6R1.DTL>. 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.