The Court, in upholding Missouri's campaign contribution limits affirmed what nearly every American believes, that big money plays a pernicious role in our politics and that we have a compelling interest in reducing the corruption-including the appearance of corruption-that results when candidates are dependent on large private contributions to pay for their campaigns.

Opponents of contribution limits had argued that the First Amendment protected all forms of political contributions and spending and urged the full repeal of contribution limits or at least the recognition that they should be adjusted upwards to take account of their lost purchasing power.

The Court in its decision made clear that states may experiment with lower limits on contributions as long as they don't choke off candidates' ability to amass the resources to run an effective campaign.

Here in San Diego the decision could not have come at a better time for local proponents of campaign finance reform. Currently, the Mayor and a majority of Council members were moving to raise the current $250 limit on individual contributions to as much as $1,000 on the basis that the $250 
 

In a clear rebuke to that kind of thinking, the Court ruled ``the dictates of the First Amendment are not mere functions of the Consumer Price Index.'' As Justice Souter wrote in the majority, ``there is little reason to doubt that sometimes large contributions will work actual corruption of our political system, and no reason to question the existence of a corresponding suspicion among voters.''

If one looks at the current San Diego mayoral race it is easy to see the corrupt influence of private money political contributions. When it's all said and done here, big money, ie the special interests, rule. Out of a large field of candidates it seems to have come down to just two candidates having a reasonable chance of victory. The putative leader, a former millionaire banker, just simply threw in a million dollars of his own money thereby ``speaking louder and longer'' than all but one of the other candidates. The other ``leader'', a county supervisor has an immense war chest of what in essence is developer and other special interest money accumulated over a political lifetime of quid pro quo votes.

With successful mayoral races costing upwards of a million dollars in the past and now heading towards 2 million dollars, and city council races costing upwards of $250,000 dollars, the ability of candidates to raise large sums of money under our present contribution limit of $250 can not be disputed. Although $250 seems to be a low contribution limit to many, it should be pointed out that less than one quarter of one per cent of American voters give $200 of more to any political campaign. Thus an elite, usually self-interested, political contributor has much more to say in political decision making than does the average tax paying voter.

It would seem that the Court has suggested a clear path for the future of campaign finance reform, that of our proposed San Diego Clean Elections Act, which sets reasonable limits on private contributions for those candidates who still want to take private money, coupled with the option of full public financing for candidates who voluntarily agree to take or spend no private money in their campaign for San Diego public office.

The value of the Naval Training Center is estimated to be over $700 million. The City of San Diego plans to give away $380 million in buildings to receive $30 million in return. Under this plan 35 acres of the base would be sold off for market rate housing, leasing of approximately 40 acres for commercial hotel development and leasing another 30 to 50 acres for commercial office development. Most of the remaining property is primarily scheduled for a retail complex.

We need to have the option of a city council or mayoral candidate running for office, who represents a humane vision of the use of these existent buildings and property.

Such will be the case if a candidate foregoes private money campaign contributions and runs under the aegis of the Clean Money Option of the San Diego Clean Elections Act.

David Diehl, president of the San Diego Alliance for Clean Elections, was voted heartfelt thanks by all who attended the general membership meeting on January 29^th.

His endless hours of work, practical ideas and especially his sensitive, classy leadership have been and continue to be, crucial to the Alliance's effort to bring Clean Elections to San Diego.

Well the long awaited day has finally come. Barring any unexpected difficulties, when you read this you should be able to access our web site using our new web address. [Ed note: you must be reading it now!]

As many of you insiders know, while the site was under construction you could access our site but you had to click on to an elusive . (period) on another progressive organization's web page. Wags in our organization referred to the process as being useful in case effective democracy ever became illegal in the United States and we had to go underground in our efforts to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Now that we are (hopefully) above ground, we urge all members and friends to log on and check out our site. Of course we are open to advice on improving it. What you see now is not what you'll see when we get this dream machine up to its full potential.

I especially would like to see a local  Project Vote Smart  type program that would track all campaign contributions to San Diego candidates and officeholders. If we could track these contributions by what special interest gave the monies and then compare that to the candidate's positions on issues, or in the case of an officeholder, we could document the effect of private money contributions on the day to day process of governmental decision making.

Another area high on my list is the maximization of our organization's slogan ``The one reform that makes all other reforms possible.'' Each area of concern could have its own area with photos and possibly a music background. Thus when you clicked on to ``Environment'' for example you could see photos of say toxic runoff and dead fish in the bay, and then read a list of special interest contributions to your local representative and his or her votes on that issue.
 

But returning to our present reality, what we have is GREAT! You get to read Mel Speaks, a compilation of political watchdog Mel Shapiro's articles for past newsletters. You get Granny D for inspiration. Past Clean Money 2000 newsletters, a summary of our proposed San Diego Clean Elections Act and questions and answers regarding Clean Money campaign finance reform in San Diego.

As we all know, a site that is unknown gets very little traffic. So it's up to all of us to get our friends and neighbors to check it out. With that in mind we will be coming out with our fat cat T shirts soon which will have the site address, as well as all Alliance literature and stationary. Best regards my friends, David.

As an outgrowth of the Oakland conference on public financing of elections, California Common Cause  has announced a new project, the Public Financing Network, which is designed to keep advocates of public financing of campaigns in touch with one another.

To become a member of the Network you must join Common Cause, annual dues are $20, $10 for students.

As a member of the Network you will receive the Public Financing Network Newsletter which is edited by Joan Mandle and JoAnn Fuller organizers of the Oakland conference. Joan and JoAnn will also provide organizing support and help provide resources to help members be successful advocates for public financing

To join send your name, address, phone number and E-mail address or Fax # to California Common Cause 926 J Street, Suite 910, Sacramento, Ca. 95814