In the Beginning
Public campaign financing in San Francisco started in the 2000 when voters approved Prop. O, which implemented a public campaign financing program for Board of Supervisors elections. Our advisor, Steven Hill, was deeply involved in this effort. Prop. O, in addition to creating the first edition of the public campaign financing program, also allowed the City government to make changes to the program by a vote of a supermajority of the Ethics Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
The Mayoral Campaign
In 2005, our organization, San Franciscans for Voter Owned Elections, was formed to expand the public campaign financing program to the mayoral race. Over the course of a year, from start to finish, we wrote legislation, made presentations to dozens of groups and lobbied our elected officials. Ultimately, we received the support of 52 organization and 16 elected officials from across San Francisco's political spectrum. When the legislation went before the Ethics Commission we had over one hundred supporters turn out to speak. Soon thereafter we received the unanimous support of the Ethics Commission and the support of 9 out of 11 members of the Board of Supervisors, making our legislation the law. Our effort was entirely on a volunteer basis. We spent only a few dollars to wage the entire campaign.
Supervisor
Ross Mirkarimi sponsored the legislation and the following
Supervisors voted in favor: Tom Ammiano, Chris
Daly, Gerardo Sandoval, Jake McGoldrick, Aaron Peskin, Fiona
Ma, Sophie Maxwell and Bevan Dufty.
Supervisors Michaela Alioto-Pier and Sean Elsbernd voted against the legislation.
Board of Supervisors Improvements
Over the three election cycles it had been in place, participation among candidates for the Board of Supervisors was declining. This was an unexpected occurence, since in almost all places that have public campaign financing programs, participation tends to rise over time. The problem seemed to be that the spending caps and funding levels were outdated and didn't reflect the realities of how much campaigns needed to spend. In 2007, Supervisor Daly introduced legislation that dramatically improved the Supervisorial program by significantly raising the spending caps, the matching levels, and applying many of the updated provisions of the mayoral program to the Board races. We assisted in the crafting this legislation, and called in our supporters to lobby the Supervisors once again.
By unanimous support of the Ethics Commission, and by a vote of 8-to-3 at the Board of Supervisors, legislation to dramatically improve the Board of Supervisors public campaign financing program passed on Nov. 6, 2007.
The legislation was written and introduced by Chris Daly, co-sponsored by Aaron Peskin, and supported by Ross Mirkarimi, Bevan Dufty, Jake McGoldrick, Tom Ammiano, Sophie Maxwell, and Gerardo Sandoval.
The legislation was opposed by Sean Elsbernd, Michaela Alioto-Pier, and Carmen Chu.
The Future
Our current program is a partial public financing program. That means that it works by giving candidate matching funds, so while there is far less private fundraising than before, there is still some. We would eventually like to move to a full public financing system that has been adopted in other places around the country. With full public financing, the candidate raises a large number of very small donations to demonstrate public support, and after that they are entirely publicly financed.
In addition, our current program does not cover many city offices including City Attorney, Public Defender, Assessor, District Attorney, Sheriff, Treasurer, Board of Education, and Community College Board. We believe that our program should cover all of these offices as well.
Sign up on our list to find out about and get involved with future efforts.
|
 |
| |
Greenlining Institute Report: Public campaign
financing boosts minority candidates and participation.
California
Democratic Party Makes Full Public Financing of Campaigns
One of its Top Ten Priority Resolutions in 2005
”Public financing is the difference between being
able to go out and spend your time talking with voters,
meeting with groups, . . . traveling to communities that
have been under-represented in the past, as opposed to
being on the phone selling tickets to a $250 a plate fundraiser.”
--Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano,
elected under Arizona's Voter Owned Elections program
"Four states: Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts
and Vermont are experimenting with offering qualified
candidates for office the option of public financing:
In exchange for refusing to pander to contributions
from donors who may want political favors, they get
a reasonable taxpayer stipend for their campaigns. .
. . The simple truth is that campaigning is expensive,
and candidates will get the money someplace. Far better
that the public, not special interests, put up the bucks."
--USA Today Editorial
“We Clean Elections [Voter Owned Elections]
pioneers are a more independent bunch, especially because
we’re not worrying about how we’re going
to raise the big bucks to win our next race. Lobbyists
for special interests tend to spend less time with us,
which makes it easier to get through the Capitol halls
in time for a vote.”
-Glenn Cummings, & Ed Youngblood, Maine State legislators,
elected using Voter Owned Elections
|
|
|
|
