March 15, 2007

Council defers consideration of public campaign financing

Findings from election commission study approved, but Council accepts
commission recommendation to defer further consideration

By Ali Abdollahi
Staff Writer

The City Council voted to accept the recommendation of the city elections commission to defer consideration of public financing of city political campaigns.

The commission was directed last March to explore the creation of a fully public-funded, voter-owned campaign ordinance. The Council requested that the commission take public testimony, obtain expert input, research current examples of public campaign financing, present a recommendation to the mayor and City Council regarding public financing for San Jose, and present possible implementation procedures should the city decide to proceed with campaign finance reform.

Through the course of their exploration into the matter, the commission found that “the need for public financing articulated in other communities might not exist (in San Jose) because of the city’s unique voluntary spending limits,” according to the commission’s study.

The other trends and factors identified by the commission were:

- Public financing of campaigns in San Jose does not necessarily improve or diversify the candidate pool. While one of the hopes of leveling the field for campaign funding is increased diversity of candidates, the vast majority of both successful and unsuccessful candidates surveyed by the commission indicated that qualified candidates already abounded in San Jose city races.

- Public financing would have little, if any impact on wealthy “special interest” spending and independent expenditures. None of the candidates and experts surveyed by the commission believed that the special interest funds currently contributed to campaigns would disappear if campaigns were publicly funded. The commission study indicated the belief of respondents that money raised in this arena by candidates would simply be redirected to other expenditures on behalf of one candidate or another.

There was also concern over contribution disclosure from special interests. While candidates must disclose all contributions in a timely manner, independent committees making expenditures have less strict, less timely and “perhaps less thorough” reporting procedures. There was also no agreement in the study regarding whether or not public funding would, at the very least, alleviate some of the public concern regarding corruption or undue influence of special interest groups in the election process.

The committee wrote, “Public financing of campaigns would allow candidates to spend more time meeting and educating constituents.” Though the candidate and expert survey results from the commission study did not support the assertion—a majority of respondents said the campaign season was either adequate or too long —the commission believed that removal of fund-raising efforts would provide candidates more opportunities to inform and become acquainted with the public.

The commission also found that concerns regarding the recent rise in independent expenditures merit the consideration of new rules addressing such expenditures before any reform on public financing is undertaken.

The commission recommended that further consideration of the public financing issue be deferred until after other referrals, dealing with independent expenditures and lobbyist reform, are resolved. The commission also stated its belief that at least one election cycle should pass with new regulations addressing independent expenditures and lobbyist reform before undertaking a consideration of public financing.