After my column last week, I got a ton of great feedback via e-mail and I wanted to try to air some of it.
You'll remember I recommended that, as the city begins to consider changes to campaign finance restrictions, it should dramatically increase the limit it puts on how much an individual can give to a campaign. My point was that the limit ($320 for citywide races) was way too low. A candidate who didn't have access to the vast fundraising power of the labor unions or business lobbyists can't raise much money even if they attract hundreds of donors.
Let's start with this e-mail from a reader who wanted to stay private.
It is the elected officials who resist the change in limits for two reasons; first, journalists jump on them for suggesting it and second, it doesn't make sense for them to help fund potential opponents. ... Most electeds would prefer a campaign limit of 10 dollars. The have been campaigning for their entire term and aren't desperate for name recognition or endorsements.
I think this is a great point. Incumbents can raise money easily. Look at the county supervisors. But incumbents also are the ones who get to make laws. It's just not in their interest to do anything that would help rivals raise money.
Now, I got a lot of feedback underneath the column and via e-mail along the lines of the one below from reader AZ:
I disagree with your suggestion to raise fundraising limits as a way to level the playing field. Other municipalities in California have much higher campaign donation limits and they are no less plagued by partisanship and ideology than San Diego. In fact, the only true effect that can be seen are larger-than-ever campaign war chests. The larger the allowed contributions, the more the wealthy patrons will shell out, as in some kind of political eBay bidding war.
I think AZ Makes a good point but I would counter with this: I don't think the amount of money spent on a campaign is a huge deal after a certain point. I think you have to have enough money to compete. I just want more people to be able to get to that point without having to engage the traditional networks for campaign financings.
AZ continues:
I would suggest to you that there are two alternative approaches that would yield better results. First, bundling needs to be banned in order to avoid the abuse of this practice as a loophole. This may be difficult in light of the 1975 Buckley vs. Valeo ruling that set a perverse precedent: Money equals speech. This precedent has stifled many attempts to control the gross influence money has on political campaigns at every level. Defeating this precedent to ban the questionable practice of bundling may require taking the legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court.
Second, America needs public financing of political campaigns at every level.
I really don't see how you can ban bundling. If I hold a fundraiser at my house and I take all the checks to a campaign and drop them off, I'm technically a bundler and I'm mad if someone tells me I can't do that. To try to define bundling clearly enough that it could be banned without trampling on a fundamental liberty, I think is impossible.
The clamoring for a publicly financed campaigns is getting louder. This would be deal where, if you agreed not to take donations over a certain limit, City Hall would cut you a check to spend on your campaign thereby freeing you of the dark influence of special interests. Thing is, you'd have to probably institute a system where you required the candidate to raise a certain amount just to prove that he or she had the ability to generate enthusiasm in the community.
I don't oppose public financing. I just really don't think it's possible to enact something like that here. Maybe, as I told the reader, that's a self-fulfilling insight, but I just am skeptical.
Bigger is the issue of "Loans" and "Self" funding a campaign. Limits should be raised in my opinion to $500 per person or $750 per married couple. BUT, I would eliminate the ability of anyone to "Self" fund his/her campaign with personal monies or loans. The Steve Francis, Peter Q, Doug Manchester, Mike Aguirre types of this City would not be able to throw monies at campaigns as they do. While voters for the most part are smarter than allowing people of such wealth to "buy" an election, the $$$ thrown at such campaigns have an effect that is not positive. Raising the limits would be a start with the elimination of taking loans or self funding a campaign. Would greatly slow down the negative campaign tactics seen with the spending of millions for TV space and the such.
Public financing is a nice idea, but it can also be abused. What happens when someone decides to run for City Council on an anti-abortion platform? They get their national network to send 100, $5 checks or whatever the threshold for public financing might be, and then they are given $100,000 to mail anti-abortion posters all over town in the name of their candidacy. Public Financing could easily become a vehicle for issue groups to get public money to run candidates who never intend to win, but who want to promote a message with public money. Think about the minute men or PETA running a candidate. This might sound far fetched, but it is important to look at unitended consequences before launching into a system like this.
Scott: How would you go about neutralizing the situation where a political party spends millions of dollars they get from big developer campaign contributions on individual candidates selected by their central committees. That's the old boy system that's hurting us most.
Public campaign financing usually is accompanied by restrictions on fund raising -- "leveling the playing field." But one-to-one financing is a guaranteed win for all but the most criminal incumbents. Campaign consultants will tell you that it takes at least a 3-1 funding advantage by a challenger to "level the playing field," and in no way assures a win. Office holders have HUGE advantages. Their staff is really a taxpayer-paid reelection staff - spending time on the job convincing all how wonderful their boss is. While staffers can't be directly paid while campaigning, it is understood that part of the job for such staff is to "on their own time" work on the campaign. Plus, the press dutifully covers every press conference the incumbents hold, and usually publish their press releases disguised as news articles. And finally, incumbents spend their entire term purchasing their reelection - with taxpayer dollars.
So, the people here are concerned that incumbents who have or may have performed well would be difficult to dislodge if given equal funding through public financing? Hah! Equal funding and equal time should be the rule. I know that people kvetch endlessly that equal time is an imposition on the press, but as a member of that underpaid group, I can say that I welcome it. And, as far as Rider chiming in, shouldn't he be complaining that the state is not bankrupt and the schools are not closed yet, so we should find more ways to issue onerous bonds which will go into repayment right as he dies? Oh, I see... he couched his objections in term of taxpayer dollars via staff wages. Waaaah!
We were founded as a nation by, of and for the people, but our funding system has created an entrenched two party network with no need to present voters with any variety of options. Laws currently require local candidates to acquire a threshhold number of signatures to qualify for the ballot. I believe all qualified candidates should receive equal public funding and no other fundraising allowed. In this way candidates would be beholden only to the voters, and able to voice a variety of uncompromised principles.
The trick to a public finance system, which as I mentioned last week I personally support, is that the threshold has to be balanced to make sure we get in candidates that can demonstrate a decent level of support without closing the doors to everyone that doesn't have broad name recognition or friends. Arizona and Maine have fully financed public finance systems, it seems to work very well there and is popular. I think it is time to talk through these issues and see if we can get it here in San Diego. Test it for at least two election cycles. Candidates can choose between a private system with higher limits than we have now or public finance. Let the people choose which they prefer -- publicly financed or privately financed candidates. I suspect publicly financed candidates would get elected.
Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Scott Lewis on Politics
The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.
Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget
PRINT 
E-MAIL STORY
SHARE
FACEBOOK
REDDIT
NEWSVINE
DIGG
DEL.ICIO.US
BLINKLIST
Don't want to miss a story? Want to be the first to know about breaking news? Sign up now.