I'm not sure that those who can afford $1000 campaign contributions aren't the folks we don't want contributing to politician's campaigns. If I give any politician only $300, its very unlikely that I'm buying his or her vote. But if a fat-cat contributor sends a politician $1000, along with other $1000 they've gathered from their employees and friends, it's much more likely that the pol will vote their way when an issue affecting their business comes before the elected official. When you allow big money into local campaigns, its more likely that you'll see vote renting even worse than we're seeing today. Let's keep the lower contribution limit we have now.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
June 12, 2008 9:02 am

No, Scott! No, no, and no, again, to public financing of elections! Just speaking for myself, I find it repugnant to think that ANY of my hard-earned taxpayer dollars might go to fund a candidate or a cause with whom (or which) I vehemently disagree. For example, if I have strong, pro-Life beliefs, I most certainly do NOT want my dollars being doled out to someone who supports abortion. (And you can name any cause or belief you want, not just abortion...) As many people know, I recently ran for City Council in District 3. As an "outsider," grassroots candidate, the biggest hindrance to my success was the inability to raise funds. But even having experienced that challenge, I still strongly oppose taxpayer funding of candidates or ballot measures. By raising the contribution limit to $1K, just a few interested citizens could indeed have helped my campaign...

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
June 12, 2008 9:28 am

More money for what? More yard signs, mail hit pieces, consultants/pollers, and misleading radio/tv ads? With all the money spent for the June election, what was the turnout, 30% or so? What did Francis pay for each of his votes? People who give to campaigns expect access. Its an investment to protect or promote their interests. Candidates rarely talk about issues anymore but they always talk about raising money for themselves and how much money their opposition has raised. Special interests and bundlers buy elections now and that wouldnt change with higher limits. Politicians have no reservation about groveling for donations even though it may be at the expense of charities seeking donations from the same audience. All districts have been gerrymandered anyway so there isnt even fair elections anymore and incumbants always win. Lets start with fair redistricting before raisng more money.

Posted by Proud Voter | reply to this comment
June 12, 2008 9:40 am

Proud Voter: You're raising an entirely different issue when you talk about the negative effects of gerrymandering, but you're also entirely correct. But gerrymandering happens, because...who draws the legislative districts? Why, the legislators themselves! We need to take redistricting out of the hands of those who most "benefit" from the practice, and use more objective and balanced commissions or other entities to do the job. But what about the original issue, Proud? Do you (or others on here) support taxpayer funding of candidates with whom you fundamentally disagree?

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
June 12, 2008 11:04 am

Who gets his phone call answered first. The bundler with 10 checks of $1000 or 10 with $320?. I was one of the authors in 1973 who set the limit at $250 which was the strongest campaign law in the country at the time and became a model used by other cities. The limit lasted for decades. Now "independent" expenditures rule and individual limits are useless. We might as well do away with the city law and just require full timely disclouser..

Posted by Dave S | reply to this comment
June 12, 2008 11:07 am

I agree the limits ought to be raised. Inflation requires it. I also agree that timely disclosure is important. The current system is badly flawed. There should be a simple once a week update of all donations, none of this waiting for the last minute to avoid disclosure before the elections. Put disclosure completely online, make it simple to use and search, and make it once a week, every week.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
June 13, 2008 6:03 am

I'm just wondering what dollar limits are set by othe cities of similar size to San Diego allow? Our campaign laws have worked well. Scott if you factor in inflation where would that put us? In other works if 100 equals 250 in 1973 dollars, what would 100 be in 2008 dollars?

Posted by Just Wondering | reply to this comment
June 13, 2008 6:47 am

I guess I'll answer my own question about inflation. According to Inflationdata.com between January 1973 and January 2008 inflation has risen 395.49%. So rounding up for America's Finest City and ease of calculation, 400%. So the $1000 figure proposed does not seem to be outrageous. But what if raised the limit, let's also fine every campaign $1 for every sign posted in the "public right-of-way". This will helf to defray the costs of cleaning up the mess the candidates, both winners and losers, always leave behind, sticking the taxpayers with the clean up costs.

Posted by Just Wondering | reply to this comment
June 13, 2008 6:59 am

Right on, Gen. Lee! I agree with you wholeheartedly. Using TAXPAYER FUNDS to support the political asperations of any person or party??!! We already have to work a third plus of each year just to support the government and keep it in the style to which it has become accustomed. Now, someone wants to add a month or so to that? What is going on?? We live in crazy times where the generation spawned by the hippies of the '60s is starting to take over and, in doing so, spread the nonsensical ideas of the ultra-radical college professors of their poor, impressionable parents. The only thing crazier than this idea is the one to burn up all our food for use as fuel (ethanol). With Einsteins like these around, who needs Al Gore to invent the Internet?

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
June 13, 2008 7:00 am

Anyone who is opposed to public financing of city campaigns is effectively supporting the 'special interests' and the 'downtown establishment'. But never fear, the cadre of lobbyists, unions, developers, and business interests reputed to be running the town are safe. San Diegans are too cheap to ever support public financing of campaigns. The only difference between a $320 limit and a $1000 limit is the small hurt it will put in the lobbyists' pocketbooks, a burden they will willingly shoulder in exchange for their even greater influence with any candidate for office who is not independently wealthy.

Posted by Simple Guy | reply to this comment
June 13, 2008 7:59 am

How about setting low limits on what politicians can spend on campaigns. Let’s learn what we need to learn about these people through public debates and structured position statements. Has anyone learned anything about a candidate based on these mailers that flood our mailboxes and the signs stapled to anything that doesn’t move? (Talk about non-green behaviors) No matter what the limit is, individuals and groups with more money will be able to sway the public and thus unduly influence the politicians. The candidates should be able to have their expenses for attending events covered and no money should be permitted to be spent on advertising in any form. Here is another crazy idea. Let’s just write a multiple choice test/survey that makes them take a position on the topics at hand. Publish this information in the voters’ pamphlet and skip all the advertising spin.

Posted by Rhino | reply to this comment
June 13, 2008 10:18 am

Individual campaign contributions probably are more traceable than big gifts in an election, unless you have an enterprising internet-savvy journalist who unearths the cabals of big spenders for uninformed voters. But basically, raising campaign limits just means more opportunities for pay-to-play high rollers and less grassroots. Before the Y2000 election, April Boling -- now a City Council candidate -- oddly appeared before the Board of Education to urge doubling campaign limits in school board races from $250 to $500. The rubber-stamp board majority at the time agreed. In that same Y2000 school board race, an unprecedented near-million dollars was spent on television and mail in an unsuccessful effort to defeat me and to elect an unqualified opponent -- now a policy advisor to Mayor Sanders -- by using the higher $500 campaign finance limit. Regardless of rationales, more money in campaigns just means more money.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
June 13, 2008 10:49 am

I believe it is a big mistake to increase the limit on personal campaign contributions. I don't understand why the Ethics Commission should be discussing the issue anyway given that its members are unrepresentative of the public. It is important to know, however, that the required electronic filing of campaign contribution reports by the City Clerk's office is much more transparent than the county , that has no electronic filing capability and the state that does not require it. I understand that major donor contributions will be required to be electronically filed soon. Best we can do without public funding of elections

Posted by Ian Trowbridge | reply to this comment
June 13, 2008 3:47 pm

Rhino writes: "How about setting low limits on what politicians can spend on campaigns...". So, Rhino, who is going to be in charge of setting these "low limits"? How "low" are the limits going to be set? What are the objective or impartial criteria that will be used to set a "low limit", without being arbitrary? And just out of curiosity, what other aspects of the First Amendment right of Free Speech would you wish to trample on?

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
June 13, 2008 5:33 pm

Clean Money or Clean Elections are the way to go. All of the objections posed so far in the comments are myths. Avail yourself of the way Clean Elections really work at publicampaign.org. If someone should be buying our government, it should be the public. The public doesn't stand a chance if they're not even allowed to finance a candidate that demonstrates broad support.

Posted by W.T. Effman | reply to this comment
June 24, 2008 12:58 pm

• 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.