Written by David W. Diehl, Research by Mel Shapiro 

Although the City of San Diego has a $250 limit on campaign contributions and banns organizational and business contributions to city candidates, money has, as usual, found a way to make its power felt in deciding who will serve as your mayor or council member.

Calling them ``independent expenditures,'' the San Diego Chargers have spent over $10,000 on a Los Angeles phone bank to make calls urging voters to support Barbara Warden for mayor. As the only mayoral candidate who supported the Charger ticket guarantee (she called it a `good deal') she has long been on the unofficial payroll of major corporate insiders 

Witness the $5,000 given to this phone bank by Douglas E. Barnhart Inc., one of the key players in the Padre stadium deal and the $5,000 given to the phone bank by the Corky McMillin Cos. which was selected by the city council (with Warden's support) to get the $500 million Naval Training Center project.

Not to be outdone by their corporate brothers, local labor unions have also made their clout felt in local campaigns for San Diego city council with the runner-up in the 7^th Council district, Deanna Spehn getting $16,646 in outside help from the AFL-CIO. Oddly enough, the Fire Fighters Union spent $7,361 on behalf of Jim Madaffer, her opponent and the top vote getter in the 7^th. District.
 

In the First Council District Scott Peters benefited by expenditures of $6,069 from the POA and $7,790 from the Firefighters. 

In the Third Council District Toni Atkins benefited by expenditures of $4,800 from the POA and $6,485 from the Firefighters. Runner-up candidate John Hartley benefited by $6,187 from the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union.

In the Fifth Council District Brian Maienschein benefited by expenditures of$6,069 from the POA and $7,583 from the Firefighters. 

In the world of independent expenditures $68,993 the total spent in the San Diego races by labor unions is not considered a world class figure (see the record $1.9 million spent on San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown by union, business and democratic interests in his re-election). We can probably expect to see much more being spent in the November elections where all of the above candidates will be competing in run-offs.

Under our proposed San Diego Clean Elections Act independent expenditures would be counted against a politician who benefits by them if they were made in the last 60 days of an election cycle and clearly stated support for a named candidate in the race. Quite often these independent expenditures try to masquerade as ``issue ads,'' when in reality they are made to benefit a candidate. Issue ads and independent expenditures are all constitutionally valid under the First Amendment as they should be. The key is to determine which is which and to offset the independent expenditure that benefits a candidate with a formula that will not disadvantage a publicly funded candidate. 

(Special thanks to Mel Shapiro head of our research committee for providing the campaign contribution data)

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; alomost 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:

• Achievements
• Size of membership
• Public awareness of organization
• Demonstrated ability to raise some money.

No project or activity is to be approved without, at the same time, adopting a well thought out and itemized budget. No exceptions!

We have 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.

Phase One: Dues

Dues from core members (present Members and those who may join the core group) should stay at $24. This money provides the minimum necessary to keep the organization running.

Phase Two: Seed Money and Membership

We need seed money to ``fund the fundraising''. 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 soley as seed money for fund raising efforts and no other purpose.

We also need to work 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 a 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 (Continued Next Issue)

A CASE IN POINT

Glen Ierley is a busy man. Not only is he a professor at UCSD but he's one of the mainstays at the Groundworks Book Store, a progressive collective with a long history of activism going back to the 60's.

You would think that a person with that much to do would not take on many other tasks. You would be wrong.
 

Over the years he has chaired our meetings (usually a thankless task) with a calm gentleness not usually seen when a bunch of community activists get together to make social change.

Recently he has set a new high point in his efforts. He is the person most responsible for our great web site. Not only did he get it up and running, he also is responsible for format and the constant updating of information that makes it a valuable tool for San Diego citizens interested in changing the way politics works.

Our last meeting voted a sincere thanks to Glenn, I take this opportunity to join with and expand that vote. Without the efforts of Glenn and people like him the Alliance would cease to exist, and all of us would be the poorer for that.