*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 <mailto: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_ <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/08/BAG3SH4R6R1.DTL>, 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 _ <http://voterownedelections.org/save_money.html> * . 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.