San Diego Alliance for Clean Elections
Post Office Box 2314
La Jolla, California 92038
619.523.9199
DAVID W. DIEHL
President
WHY SAN DIEGO’S FAT CATS LOVE CAMPAIGN FINANCE “DEFORM”
October 1, 1999
Dear Mayor Golding and Council Members Wear, Mathis, Vargas and Warden:
Do you really think Campaign Finance Reform means:
-
Allowing individual campaign contributors to DOUBLE what they now give
to Candidates for City office?
-
That the proposed DOUBLED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS be even further INCREASED
to take inflation into account?
-
That a new SLUSH FUND be set up for City Officeholders?
That probably does not sound like Campaign Finance Reform to most of the
people of San Diego. The trouble with these three proposals that are before
you now as members of the Rules Committee of the San Diego City Council
is that these proposals would in fact make the political campaign finance
system even more dependent on the biggest and wealthiest special
interest campaign contributors. This is Campaign Finance Deform, not Reform.
THE PROBLEM
-
First, the proposal before you allows the wealthiest contributors to give
even more money to influence City elections and public policy. Instead
of today's $250 contribution limit, individuals would be able to give $500.
At present, just one quarter of 1 percent of the voting population of the
United States gives more than $200 to a candidate for public office. Thus
the financing of the democratic process in the City of San Diego is out
of reach of all but the very few in our society who can afford to PAY to
PLAY. Doubling the contribution limit would enable a sliver of a fraction
of San Diego citizens to further expand their influence on San Diego's
elected officials.
-
Second, the proposal before you also calls for adjusting contribution limits
to account for inflation. It is argued -correctly¾
that
candidates spend too much time raising money, and the individual limits
encourage more millionaire candidates because it is easier to finance your
own campaign. But this solution is just plain wrong. Even at the current
level the great majority of San Diegans cannot afford to and do not in
fact make a $250 contribution, let alone a $500 one.
Like the proposal to double campaign contribution limits, indexing would
only favor the richest fraction of the tiny minority of voters who already
give such sums, increasing their political clout and further undermining
the principle of one -person one-vote.
There are other, far preferable ways to end the money chase in San
Diego politics, like Clean Money Campaign Finance Reform that would give
limited but adequate public grants to qualified candidates who promise
to take no private money.
- Third, the proposal before you to establish an “Officeholders Account”
would substitute private money for public money in paying expenses of our
local elected officeholders. It is bad enough that private money elects City
officeholders let alone that this same money source would maintain officeholders
in office. Such a proposal would further aggrevate the problem of too much
private money in San Diego politics.
Most San Diegans know that private wealth has always played a major role
in local politics, but many feel that now, in the 1990s, big special interest
money has become the primary currency of what passes for the democratic
process in our community.
Many San Diegans feel that before the public ever casts their ballots, wealthy
special interest campaign contributors have voted with their wallets, and effectively
decided which candidates will have the resources to run serious campaigns for
San Diego Mayor, City Attorney, or Council Member. Nearly all candidates and
city officeholders (except rich ones) are dependent on this ocean of “dirty”
money. It would be unconscionable to increase the influence of San Diego's well
heeled special interests to the detriment of the many San Diego citizens attempting
to participate in America's dream of local democracy.
We, at the Alliance, ask you; Would San Diego voters favor these proposed
changes? We think NOT! National polls show that the public's top priority
for Campaign Finance Reform is to LIMIT, NOT INCREASE, the influence of
wealthy special interests. And when asked specifically about increasing
limits on campaign contributions, voters are strongly opposed. We feel
that you as our elected officials would only be kidding yourselves if you
think you can convince voters that the way to fix the campaign finance
mess is by raising the limits for the wealthiest and most powerful so they
can give even more.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
David W. Diehl
President
San Diego Alliance for Clean Elections