|
|
|---|
|
AIMING HIGH: Why Full Public Financing of Elections is Superior to Partial Edited by DAVID W. DIEHL, from original published by Public Campaign with much thanks and appreciation. ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS True democracy sets high standards: it aspires to the principles of political equality (``one person, one vote'') and public accountability (``government of, for and by the people''). From this standpoint, all campaign finance systems that rely on private money to finance candidates' campaigns contain a fatal flaw, even those systems that combine public financing with private contributions. That flaw is a matter of
common sense,
not to mention simple observation. Not all people have the same
amount
of money. If money is a critical ingredient in elections, people
with more
|
money will have a distinct
advantage
and people with less will have a distinct disadvantage. This
applies to
running for public office, supporting others who are running for
public
office, and gaining access to those who have been elected to
public office.
There will never be absolute equality. Some candidates will always have advantages over others --- incumbency, good looks, or connections. Such inequalities, for the most part, would be almost impossible to eliminate even if we wanted to. Yet, we can and must do something about campaign finance systems that are wholly or substantially financed by private dollars because such systems have enormous built in, that is, structural inequalities. They create a serious and often insurmountable handicap for people who cannot afford to finance their own campaigns for public office, who are unable to raise large sums of money from others in order to run for office, and who cannot make major financial contributions to support other candidates. Those who are thus handicapped include the vast majority of Americans. Faced as we are with such basic and far-reaching flaws in the campaign finance system, it makes no sense to limit our reform aims from the outset. We should not start by asking whether a proposal will bring about ``some improvement.'' Continued Next Month. |
|
BY DAVIDW. DIEHL, President, San Diego Alliance for Clean Elections Most groups don't publicize their fund raising strategies for fear of alienating potential donors. You'll find our strategy right on page one. We hope some of our readers will like what they see and participate in our quest for money so that we can indeed move to the next level, ie , getting the Clean Election Act on the San Diego ballot. Speaking
of money, one of our members gave me a check for $100 on the
condition
that others will contribute $100. So now's the time to give, it's
a double
or nothing, and we like the odds.
|
It's April,
so it must be Earth Day. And yes we do have a booth. So come on
by and
check it out, better yet volunteer (all or part 10 to 5, Sunday,
April
16th. at Balboa Park. See you there.
Aiming High, Full Public Financing of Elections is Superior to Partial starts its first chapter in this issue of the newsletter. A poll of the members present at the last meeting showed an overwhelming majority for that sentiment with many saying (myself included) that they would not even bother to work on anything less. Campaign Finance Reform is the issue for this election. Vice president Gore is on board with a proposal to create a Democracy Endowment to fund all Federal campaigns. We'll run that idea by for San Diego local elections. A good idea whose time has come. And finally,
Mel Shapiro does it again by breaking the Councilman Wear story
in Clean
Money 2000, another exclusive for us.
|
|
Alliance Member's Meetings, First Our organization meets the first Saturday of every month at 10:00 AM. We meet at the Santa Clara Recreation Center. It is located at 1008 Santa Clara Place. (Heading South on Mission Blvd., turn left at Santa Clara and continue straight ahead to the Recreation Center.), |
|
Councilman's actions show why San Diego needs an Ethics Commission By MEL SHAPIRO, Chair, Research Committee, San Diego Alliance for Clean Elections. In a March 15 article, Councilman Byron Wear comments on sewage spills, saying "we need to get those sewer mains out of the canyons." What makes this interesting is the fact that Wear owns a canyon in Encanto where he is now in the process of developing three houses. Wear is a 50% owner of the land, called Pepper View Canyon, located at 65th Street and Varney Drive. The ownership is listed on his annual financial disclosure statement, and has been listed since he joined the city council in 1995. But the listing contains another phrase, namely, "Sold-In escrow." This phrase has been on his statement for 5 years. Anyone who has ever been involved in real estate knows that escrows don't last 5 years. In fact, 1 year would be unusual. Assessor records show that the property has not been sold and that it is owned by a company called Pepper View Canyon Limited Partnership. It appears that the "Sold-in Escrow" phrase is designed to make people believe that he has no financial interest in the property. And what about the Pepper View Canyon partnership ? Secretary of State records show Wear to be a general partner. The other general partner is Chris Montgomery, whose name appears on all the permit applications and on the sign advertising that houses will soon be built on the land.
Most people would have a hard time getting a permit to grade and develop in a canyon. |
It would be unseemly for a councilman, who happens to be chairman of the Land Use and Housing Committee, to be publicly known as a developer. The importance of this committee was shown in 1997 when the city council voted on changes to the existing land use regulations. Councilwoman Kehoe wanted to make sure that community plans were adhered to in the new rules. Wear voted against this and the matter was referred to his committee. During the debate, Wear never mentions that he owns a canyon that he wants to develop. This despite the fact that the community plan for Encanto says "Preserve and protect the natural canyons and slopes of south Encanto." The California Government Code states "No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest." Although public officials are required to list their businesses on the disclosure statement, Wear has never listed his partnership .Every one of the 5 disclosure statements he filed are in violation of the law. The San Diego City Attorney is aware of this. As we know, the City Attorney does not enforce laws against city councilmembers. Most people would have a hard time getting a permit to grade and develop in a canyon. Not here. Wear's company rented bulldozers which began grading the canyon last year without any permit, but when a resident complained a grading permit was obtained ministerially. Ministerially means that city staff decided no hearing was necessary. Reynaldo Pisano, chair of the local city authorized community planning group, is very annoyed that his group was not consulted about the grading and destruction of this canyon. But it seems that community plans don't mean too much if the councilman for the district wants to violate them. George Stevens is the councilman for Encanto and is doing his best to grease the wheels for his colleague. One example is where Wear's company asked the City to give up its rights to connect 65th to 66th street through a portion of the canyon, called a "street vacation." The application, signed by Wear's partner, Chris Montgomery, says they have been working with Stevens office and fees have been deferred. It is being processed by city development staff and is supposed to go through a public hearing with a date yet to be determined. If you want more information on this, you won't find it in the San Diego Union. |
|
FUNDING PLAN INTRODUCTION This plan is designed to raise money the old fashioned way; we will have to work to get it. Similar approaches have worked for other organizations and it will work for us. If we know of an ``angel'' so committed to our cause that they are willing to finance our initiative, then this work and plan will be unnecessary. However, experience and past unsuccessful efforts indicate that we are unlikely to find such an ``angel''. The major benefit of any plan is that it provides focus and direction to the efforts of the group. The plan, as adopted, reflects the group's considered decision on how to spend time and effort wisely. The group commitment to the plan is important. If we find ourselves spending fundraising time and effort doing something not on the plan, our commitment requires that we must stop and either get back to the plan or change it. This discipline will keep us from wasting time and effort chasing the latest ``hot'' idea without serious evaluation and a decision to change the plan. The plan we adopt is like a road map to our destination. Detours mean we risk losing our way. A word about foundations; almost 90% of total contributions are made by individuals. Foundations look attractive as a quick fix, but individuals give far more. Foundations are even less likely to give to our cause since it does not fit the traditional definition of a charity. Furthermore, they want to see a record of accomplishment, a list of who else is giving, a well thought out proposal and coherence with their guidelines for giving. Focusing on individuals does not mean that we ignore foundations. But the fact is that individuals are the best prospects. Speaking of individuals: the 80/20 rule applies. Twenty percent of the donors will provide 80% of the funding. Except for the committed ``angel'' however, larger donors give to credible and effective organizations. Consequently, we must work
on building
credibility, in order to meet our goals. Credibility comes
from:
GUIDING PRINCIPLE - BUDGETS No project or activity is to be approved without, at the same time, adopting a well thought out and itemized budget. No exceptions! We heve come to a point where we realize that our goals will not be accomplished without money. Without money, the organization will stagnate as a meeting group unable to take effective action. Fund raising and financial discipline are the keys to moving to the next level. THE PLAN PHASE ONE: DUES |
We need seed money to ``fund the fund raising''. We also need membership to establish viability and to demonstrate the broad interest in the cause that is necessary to appeal to larger donors. First, we would create a new class of ``supporting member'' (like many other advocacy groups, without voting rights or rights limited solely to electing directors). Dues will be minimal, say $3.00. We must try to sign up as many supporting members as we can. One-half these dues shall be used to communicate with supporting members. The other half are committed to be used solely as seed money for fund raising efforts, and no other purpose. We also need to work at getting a petition or statement of support signed. The petition provides a list for communication and solicitation of additional funds. It also demonstrates public support and builds credibility. One method to accomplish these objectives is to set up a table with two people at a shopping center or any other place where people gather, or where there is high pedestrian traffic. At one side of the table, we would register voters. The other side might have a banner, ``Clean Up City Government''. We would hand out literature, get the clean election petition signed and sign up supporting members. To get more people to the table we might also get another broad appeal petition signed, e.g., protesting monopoly cable TV rates (see the recent Union Tribune editorial, which could be enlarged and displayed). Other seed money/membership building activities would include such events as presenting a speaker (not necessarily political but any speaker who will attract an audience), coffees, auctions, garage sales, music, comedy or theater performance. Any event within our financial and staffing abilities that helps achieve our goals should be considered. Ninety percent of all money raised in phase one shall be set aside and used solely to pay for additional fund raising activities. When the seed money fund has reached $5,000, we will develop the second stage of the fund raising effort. The second stage will accelerate the fund raising process, target larger donors and may involve using a professional fundraiser. PHASE THREE: CULTIVATION OF
DONORS
Past Donors: We must develop a complete list of everyone who at any time has given more than the basic dues of $24. The list should be segregated by level of giving. We must then re-connect with those individuals. The first contact should not be to ask , seek to get re-connected. Tell them of our plans. Ask for their opinions. Thank them for past support. We might use them as a fund raising focus group asking why they gave and other question to refine future efforts. Continue regular periodic contact. After we have re-established rapport, we can ask for contributions. New Donors: New donors must be recognized and through regular communication we need to help them understand how important their support is and how great the cause. Supporting Members: A similar but less intensive program should seek to build communication and rapport with new supporting members to minimize defections. If we don't do this, we will soon be running in place or even backsliding, with new members merely replacing those who have lost interest PHASE FOUR: PUBLICITY A continuing and enduring planned effort to get publicity and exposure must be undertaken. Public awareness and press clippings help establish credibility and make it easier to solicit large donors and foundations. PHASE FIVE: LARGE DONORS AND FOUNDATIONS We are now ready to implement a plan to solicit large donors and foundations. How quickly we get to this phase depends on how quickly and how well we execute the first four phases.
|