Newsletters & More!

The following is a San Diego Union-Tribune editorial titled "No Tax Subsidies" which was originally published on January 6, 2004. The editorial was critical of the San Diego Ethics Commission's proposal for a matching-funds campaign finance program.

Several members of the SDACE responded to the questions raised about public funding of political campaigns. Their responses follow the editorial.

No tax subsidies
Reporting is key to city campaign law
The San Diego Union - Tribune. San Diego, Calif. Jan 6, 2004. pg. B.6

San Diego long has had one of the most stringent -- and most effective -- campaign finance laws in the nation. The ordinance limits contributions from individuals to $250, and flatly prohibits contributions from corporations, labor unions or other groups. In addition, the measure requires public disclosure of all donations of $100 or more.

The question then is, what problem is the Ethics Commission trying to solve with its plan to rewrite San Diego's model law, including an ill-advised and costly scheme for taxpayer financing of campaigns?

When the City Council's Rules Committee considers this proposal later in the month, it should take an honest look at the potential costs of diverting scarce tax dollars into the coffers of candidates for mayor, city attorney and council. The price tag is likely to run into the millions of dollars per election.

That is money that would be spent far more prudently on fire safety, libraries, street repairs and an innumerable list of other basic services. Considering the enormous pressures confronting the budget -- including a crushing debt owed to the city retirees' pension fund -- San Diego plainly cannot afford to siphon general fund dollars into political campaigns. Given a choice between spending their taxes on a firefighting helicopter or on aspirants for public office, the voters no doubt would choose fire preparedness over electioneering, and understandably so.

That certainly has been the experience at the federal level, where taxpayer support for public financing of presidential campaigns has declined precipitously. Based on current trends, by 2008 only 5 percent of federal tax filers will voluntarily check off on their returns the earmarking of funds for presidential hopefuls.

Even if San Diego were wallowing in cash and wanted to provide public subsidies for politicking, the Ethics Commission's plan still would be gravely flawed. Its main drawback is that, due to the very low spending limits contenders would have to abide by voluntarily in exchange for public financing, the only recipients of taxpayer subsidies likely would be third-tier candidates who had little or no ability to raise money on their own.

Very few if any major aspirants for City Council would voluntarily agree to the Ethics Commission's spending limit of $75,000. (In the last election, $860,000 was spent by the top two office-seekers in the 2nd District City Council race alone.) Similarly, no strong contender for mayor would voluntarily accept a limit of $200,000. (In 2000, the two runoff candidates for mayor spent $2.2 million.)

With the front-running candidates eschewing public financing because of the spending limits, only the perennial also-rans would cash in on the taxpayers' largesse. The same predictable pattern has emerged at the federal level, with both George Bush and Howard Dean turning down federal matching funds in order to exceed the spending restrictions. San Diego could address this problem by raising the spending limits, but that would only magnify the drain on the city's general fund.

We have three better suggestions to bolster the campaign finance ordinance. First, require that contributions to municipal candidates be disclosed on the Internet the very same day they are received. Second, require that all contributions be reported, regardless how small. Third, double the contribution limit from $250 to $500 in order to make up for some of the inflation that has occurred in the 30 years since the limit was established.

January 6, 2004

Editor:

Your editorial (“No Tax Subsidies”, Jan. 6, 2004) offers a superficial argument against publicly funded campaigns by saying the dollars would be better spent on fire safety, libraries and street repairs. The fact is that under the present system there are no dollars for fire safety, libraries or street repairs or a long list of other basic needs. That's because politicians have diverted so many taxpayer dollars to repaying political contributors. How else to explain obscene ticket guarantees, sweetheart deals to developers and three council members under indictment with a recent council member admitting his second ethics violation.

We will have more money for needed public services if we spend a fraction of what we have spent on football tickets to fund elections free of contribution pollution. If you are correct that the proposed funding limits are too low to be effective, then you should advocate increasing them to more a realistic level.

I thank you for inviting public dialogue on this critical topic.

Arthur E. Kirchheimer
La Jolla

Your editorial, "No Tax Subsidies," seems to take the position that the city cannot afford to underwrite the cost of electing honest, capable, highly motivated and non- conflicted candidates to public office. You feel the tax "subsidy" is just beyond our capability to pay, but we're still paying for unsold Charger tickets, which have so far cost us $36 million. And our elected officials gave away $500 million of Naval Training Center property to a heavy campaign contributor for $8. Can we afford that?

Yes, we already have campaign financing laws that are quite stringent. We also have 3 councilmen under indictment, so apparently those laws are not yet stringent enough. Yes, two top contenders for the 2nd district council seat laid out almost $900,000 to win a job that pays $75,386. Does that raise a question about why some heavy campaign contributors thought that $900,000 might be a good investment?

Let me tell you what I think I can no longer afford. I can't afford even the appearance of corruption in my city's government. I can't afford to have my elected officials owing favors to heavy campaign contributors, whether they're sports team owners, real estate developers, Las Vegas strip joint operators or anyone else. And I can't afford NOT to pay the three or four dollars per person per year that a well designed public campaign funding program would cost.

You're right about the Ethics Commission's matching funds proposal; It's a non- starter. What we desperately need is FULL public funding of the campaign for a candidate who agrees to take no money from any other source. We need officials who represent OUR best interests, not those of their rich campaign contributors. We can't afford less.

Lee Crawford
San Diego

Published 1/14/2004 in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Clean Campaigns Are Possible

A voluntary public campaign funding program that matches privately raised funds with taxpayer dollars is a waste of taxpayer dollars. It simply gives special interest contributors a discount when they throw money at a candidate to influence their decisions; their bribes would be compounded with tax dollars.

The effective, proven way to reform our campaign process is the Clean Elections law, which provides full, not partial funding, for candidates that voluntarily agree to follow a strict set of rules that provide transparency and accountability to the public. Clean Candidates can not accept money from any other source or use any of their own. They will be given realistic budgets to run competitive campaigns.

We all agree that the taxpayers ought to share the operating costs of government. Political campaigns are such a basic part of our government process that they should be included as part of the operating costs. The program's budget is capped at 1/2% of the City's budget, but estimates are that it would cost only half that much. It comes down to about 3 or 4 dollars per voter. The benefits will be minimizing corruption, voter apathy, and horribly conflicted government that gives away millions of dollars of taxpayer money to special interest contributors.

If someone is going to buy our government, it should be the public. If we can afford to fix potholes, we can afford to fix our democratic system. San Diego has a golden opportunity to put this law on the ballot for the November 2004 election, and then to pass it into law.

Alberto Zevallos
Co-Chairman
San Diego Alliance for Clean Elections

You state that San Diego has "the most stringent and most effective campaign finance laws in the nation," then ask "what problem is the Ethics Commission trying to solve?"

What problem?! Are these the same editors who have given so much press to the Inzunza/Lewis/Zucchet scandal? Do the words "city budget," "downtown ballpark," or "ticket guarantee" ring any bells?

Complaints of "scarce tax dollars" and a "price tag likely to run into the millions of dollars per election" seem like chump change compared to a number like $500 million or $1 billion. Those numbers are estimates of the value for the formerly public-owned Naval Training Center.

I do agree with the sentiment that the money could "be spent far more prudently on fire safety, libraries, street repairs and an innumerable list of other basic services". Perhaps developers like McMillin could afford to pay for more infrastructure if they didn't have to spend the tens of thousands that they have put into the campaign coffers of all our City representatives, excluding Michael Zucchet.

The only solution I can see is a system that elects City representatives who aren't bought and paid for by special interests. This system has a name... Clean Elections!

Marc Snelling
San Diego

Published 1/15/2004 in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

‘Clean’ Campaigns Tie Pols to Public Interest

Regarding the Jan. 6 editorial “No Tax Subsidies/Reporting is key to city campaign law”:

Yes, in the immediate future, publicly funded campaigns will cost more in local taxes. But the reason we are in such dire financial straits right now is that politicians are still bound by private, not public, interests. A candidate who does choose to run “clean” is bound only to the public, as it financed his campaign. I don't mind paying for something if I get my money's worth.

There are ways, as well, to keep the costs to the public down. For example, the public owns the local airwaves. Simply mandate that local carriers set aside specific blocks of time during election campaigns to broadcast the publicly sponsored debates and rerun them during non-peak times.

The publicly sponsored model is already working in Arizona and in Maine, and Clean candidates are winning. I can see why a Clean candidate could win almost any debate just by holding up the contribution list of his opponent.

Jacob Wilson
San Diego

Dear San Diego UT Editorial Writers,

Is it not more cost effective to invest $ 3.00 per voter to pay for public funding for public elections than $716 million for subsidizing billionaire owners with millionaire players?

Damien Simeone
San Diego Business Council
San Diego

Regarding the Jan. 6 editorial "No tax subsidies / Reporting is key to city campaign law":

San Diego campaign finance laws do not prevent the abusive large contributions to City Hall politicians, who are beholden to influential, big-money donors instead of the public good. Big developers and other business interests evade campaign finance laws by bundling their contributions. The giveaway of public lands to a private developer at NTC and the ongoing football ticket sales guarantees are just two examples of the corruption of public funds.

The Ethics Commission can be commended for its recommendation to rewrite San Diego's law to bring long-overdue public funding opportunities to candidates who are sick of having to dial for dollars when they could be speaking and listening to voters' problems and concerns.

The initiative proposal drafted by the San Diego Alliance for Clean Elections provides a volunteer program of public funding for candidates running for city office. The initiative strengthens the right of voters to be heard and restores public confidence in San Deigo city government.

We can stop the corruption of private money in San Diego politics with full public funding.

You say that we have one of the most stringent -- and most effective -- campaign finance laws in the nation. But haven't you noticed, they ain't working?

The Ethics Commission's proposal of matching funds for candidates for the office of mayor, city attorney and council, who volunteer to accept spending limits, would simply perpetuate the problem of conflict of interest that big money and special interests create.

Only full public funding of these campaigns will put trust in our city government and the interest of the citizens first.

Currently, we have three City Council members under federal indictment for wrongdoing following the Cheetahs' investigation. On Jan. 6 the Union-Tribune reported that Byron Wear, a former council member, agreed to pay a $7,000 fine to the state for a second ethics violation while in office. The list goes on.

All campaign contributions to candidates by special interests, corporations, private individuals, etc., must be eliminated and full public funding enacted. Some say that we can't afford to take that route. I say we cannot afford not to take it.

Two Web sites (www.sdace.org and www.publicampaign.org) will enlighten the readers about Clean Elections in San Diego and the success other states have achieved.

Inspired to send a letter to the Editor of the San Diego Union-Tribune? Click here.