June Newsletter of the San Diego Alliance for Clean Elections: Clean Money 2000 Vol 1, No. 5
 
MAYOR GOLDING: POLITICAL ETHICS AN OXYMORON?
 By Mel Shapiro - Chair, Research Committee 

The San Diego Code of Ethics relating to office-holder conduct is embodied in City Council Policy #000-4 and reads as follows; 
 

" No elected official, officer, appointee or employee shall engage in any enterprise or activity which shall result in any of the following: receiving or accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift or favor from anyone doing business with the City of San Diego under circumstances from which it could be reasonably inferred that such was intended to influence him in his official employment or duties, or as a reward for official action."

The City also has an Administrative Regulation saying;
" Persons shall not accept gifts, gratuities or favors of any kind which might reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to influence their actions with respect to City business." 

 

 

In last month's newsletter I listed the campaign contributions from persons with a financial interest in the Padres ballpark project. To refresh your memory, Mayor Golding got $3,000 from Padres owners and $14,000 from business interests who stand to profit from locating the 

 ballpark in East Village. In 1996, John Moores, owner of the Padres, gave $25,000 to the Republican Convention, even though Moores was then a Democrat. It was no secret that the mayor was raising private funds to get the Republicans to come here. 

The mayor and her staff received gifts from the Padres as follows: 

  • February 8, 1998 - 2 flower bouquets to Mayor Golding - $70.00 
  • July 10, 1998 - Dinner at Tupelo American with mayors chief of staff - $20.83 
  • July 17, 1998 - Lunch at Sally's restaurant with Mayor Golding - $16.05. 
  • July 23, 1998 - Dinner at Elephant Bar with Fred Sainz, deputy chief of staff - $17.83 
  • July 26, 1998 - Dinner at TGI Friday with Mayor Golding - $18.45 
  • Oct. 3, 1998 - Tickets to Padres game for Mayor Golding - $184.00 
  • Oct. 19, 1998 - Food and beverage at Grand Hyatt, New York with Mayor Golding - $43.35 
  • Nov. 17, 1998 - Food & bev. at Dobsons with Teresa Stivers of mayor's staff - $23.52. 
  • Nov. 20, 1998 - Food & bev. at Dobsons with mayor's chief of staff - $30.81 
Source; Documents on file with City Clerk. (Editor's Note: Recently San Diego City Attorney Casey Gwin ruled that Charger owner Alex Spanos and Padres owner John Moore did not have to report their gifts to city politicians and employees as they were not "employees" of their organizations and thus did not fall under the lobbying regulations. )
What the San Diego Clean Elections Act Can Do For the Public Interest Community 

Clean Money Campaign Reform: A reform that makes all other reforms possible!

Written by David W. Diehl,  Newsletter staff

Private wealth has always played a major role in San Diego politics, but in the 1990's big special interest money has become the primary currency of what passes for democracy in our City. 

Before the public ever casts their ballots, wealthy special interest campaign contributors vote with their wallets, effectively deciding which candidates will have the resources to run serious campaigns for San Diego mayor, city attorney or councilmember. 

Nearly all candidates for city office (except rich ones) are dependent on this ocean of "dirty" money. As a result, these well-heeled special interests shape San Diego's public policy as they loot the city treasury for their own multimillion dollar private projects. 

A quick look at the local campaign contribution lists maintained by the San Diego City Clerk shows clearly that San Diego's community organizations, issue advocates and constituency groups have never been able to come close to raising as much money as groups representing wealthy special interests and the status quo. 

And it is not any better on the national level. In the last election cycle for example, corporations outspent labor by a ratio of 12- to- 1. Gas and oil companies and other natural resource industries outspent environmental interests by 27-to-1, and finance and real estate interests spent over $130 million just on Congressional races alone .

Of all this money given to local and national political candidates almost none represented the thousands of San Diegans who are poor, or parents of public school children, or victimized by toxic dumping or agri-chemical contamination, or who are small banking depositors and borrowers, or people dependent on public housing, transportation, libraries and hospitals. 

This issue should matter to everyone who wants to safeguard their tax dollars, revitalize democracy and ensure that the views of average San Diegans and grassroots organizations have a more equal footing in public debate. 

 

 That is why reformers and public interest advocates of all stripes must come together on behalf of the San Diego Clean Elections Act. It is time to break the link between special interest contributors and our elected San Diego officials. 

The San Diego Clean Elections Act (SDCEA) offers a new approach to financing city elections by providing candidates an alternative to soliciting special interests or spending personal funds to run for city office. Under SDCEA, candidates who voluntarily reject private money and limit their spending receive a fixed amount of campaign funding from a publicly financed fund. 

Clean money campaign reform programs such as the proposed San Diego Clean Elections Act enjoy broad public support. In national polling, 68 percent of voters nationwide favored a clean money approach to reform. This is true among all sectors of the public and across the political spectrum. Indeed, support for such a change is at its highest point since Watergate. Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Michigan, Arizona and New York City have already enacted clean money campaign reform and other states and cities are likely to follow. 

Grassroots candidates and electoral coalitions would finally be able to compete on an equal footing on the basis of program, ideas, and leadership ability, not money. 

Whether your concern is housing, jobs, the environment or health, here is how the San Diego Clean Elections Act works for you. By creating an alternative source of "clean money" that is not tied to our local special interest fat cats, SDCEA would supplant the current system that makes access to private wealth the key determinant of a person or organization's ability to influence the political arena. Instead of having to woo fat-cat contributors, potential Clean Money Candidates would have to woo the public to collect a predetermined number of small donations to demonstrate real constituent support. And once they receive their Clean Money financing, they would not be raising or spending any private money whatsoever. As a result, grassroots candidates and electoral coalitions would finally be able to compete on an equal footing on the basis of program, ideas and leadership ability, not money. 

By placing a premium on organizing rather that fundraising, the San Diego Clean Elections Act would shift the priorities of electoral work back towards those priorities that ought to matter most in a representative democracy: issue development and advocacy, canvassing, voter education, and get out the vote drives. Once elected, clean money financed office-holders would be freed to spend their time attending to their constituents concerns. Thus a political arena where public policies could be debated more fairly and democratically would be created. This would have a positive effect on the mayor and city councils' ability to develop and pass legislation that is in the public interest rather than the private interest of campaign contributors. 

(Special thanks to Public Campaign for source material) 
 
The Unz Initiative: 

Campaign Finance Deform 
California software millionaire Ron Unz, the man who brought us the ballot proposition that effectively ended bilingual education in the state is now bringing us his version of campaign finance reform. Called the California Voters Bill of Rights it sets a contribution limit of $5,000 per election to candidates for statewide office and bans corporate contributions outright. Gubernatorial candidates who establish voluntary spending limits of $6 million in the primary and $10 million in the general would get partial public matching funds.(Good money after bad?) Unz's proposal is receiving mixed reviews from campaign finance experts. Ellen Miller of Public Campaign was quoted by the NY Times as saying that the plan would not address the fundamental issues of money in politics. Unz is aiming for next March and needs 670,000 signatures to get it on the ballot. 

Virtual Initiative 

The large numbers of signatures to get a measure on the ballot in California means groups are increasingly hiring paid petition gatherers. It costs an estimated $1 million to put a measure on the statewide ballot. The practice - affirmed in January with a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Colorado law that said petition circulators must be registered to vote in the state - gives well-financed special interests an edge over less affluent citizen groups in getting initiatives on the ballot. Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper's push to let groups collect signatures on the Internet would use technology to level the playing field. Petition drives could be organized and campaigns operated over the internet at relatively low cost, advocates say. The effort, however, will require legislation authorizing electronic petitions and digital signatures and addressing security concerns. Grassroots candidates and electoral coalitions would finally be able to compete on an equal footing on the basis of program, ideas, and leadership ability, not money.

 
THOSE WHO CAN TEACH, ALSO DO! 
Richard Braunstein is a few months shy of earning his Ph. D. in political science from the University of Colorado. No matter. He's already put his studying to action. With $1,400 of his own money and the financial help and hard work of some dedicated friends, the 34-year-old New Jersey native has launched a nonprofit organization called the Citizens Institute for Voter Information in Colorado (CIVIC). The non-partisan group made a splash when it made available a free searchable database of state-level campaign contributions at www.civic.nu. Normally this information is available only in person at the Secretary of State's office in Denver, or electronically for fees that range from the hundreds to thousands of dollars. Since the Denver Post published a story in February about the Website, Braunstein has received a flurry of congratulations and queries. Plans are underway to standardize the database and code it by industry. Also on the "to do" list are posting information about rules for participating in the Colorado political process, the legislative activities of lawmakers, and a "candidate watch" program for the next election. 

 

GO BACK

CLOSE WINDOW