Tag Cloud
Sunday, March 21, 2010
City Council to Throw Out Fair Election Ordinance
by William Burg, published on March 31, 2009 at 12:04PM
Storyline: Sacramento Politics
No high resolution image exists...
Today's (Tuesday, March 31st) Sacramento city council meeting includes an item on the "consent calendar" (meaning a group of items expected to be non-controversial) that would eliminate portions of Sacramento's campaign finance law. This change would remove any fundraising limits for organizations called "independent expenditure committees" and also raise campaign contribution limits for political candidates.
What is an "independent expenditure committee," you might ask? Wikipedia defines them as: "In elections in the United States, an independent expenditure is a political activity intended to assist or oppose a specific candidate for office which is made without their cooperation, approval, or direct knowledge. Most commonly, this takes the form of advertising. In some cases, independent expenditures may far exceed direct spending by the candidates' campaigns. Groups which frequently make use of independent expenditures include political party committees, political action committees, and 527 groups."
Some examples of "independent expenditure committees" include groups like MoveOn.org or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (527 groups) or the Democratic National Committee or Republican National Committee (political party committees.)
The full report can be found here:
http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=8&event_id=80&meta_id=174038
The reason given for this change is the risk of a court challenge. During the last election cycle, attorneys representing independent expenditure committees, one supporting former Mayor Fargo and one supporting current Mayor Johnson approached the city. They wanted to spend money beyond the current spending limits to support their respective candidates, and threatened to sue the city over their campaign-finance laws based on the following precedents:
N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir 2008) and Arkansas Right to Life State PAC v. Butler, 29 F.Supp.2d 540 (W.D. Ark. 1998)
The city, faced with the threat of lawsuit, declared that the city would not enforce its spending-limit laws during the last weeks of the election. Now, the city government plans to eliminate these laws entirely. It is not being discussed as a city council issue, but passed with a series of purportedly non-controversial regulations. Its result will probably be an even greater level of influence for developers and other moneyed interests, while restricting the ability of members of the public who are not wealthy or backed by the wealthy to run for public office.
If you are interested in providing feedback to the City Council, or asking them to take this item off of today's consent calendar, please call the City Council members at the numbers below. The item in question is Item 5 on the consent calendar: Ordinance Amendment: Ordinance Amending and Repealing Various Sections of Title 2 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to the City's Campaign Chapters (Contributions and Spending)
Kevin Johnson
Mayor
Mayor's Office
916-808-5300
Ray Tretheway
Ray Tretheway
District 1
916-808-7001
Sandy Sheedy
District 2
916-808-7002
Steve Cohn
District 3
916-808-7003
Robert King Fong
District 4
916-808-7004
Lauren Hammond
District 5
916-808-7005
Kevin McCarty
District 6
916-808-7006
Robbie Waters
District 7
916-808-7007
Bonnie Pannell
District 8
916-808-7008
Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.
Leave a Comment
From the research I have done NEITHER of the cases cited prevent the City of Sacramento from having campaign spending limits. The N.C Right to life case is a FOURTH CIRCUIT decision, not binding in California, we're in the 9th Circuit! The other case is an ARKANSAS case! Also not binding in California. If Fargo or Johnson wanted to sue the city they would have had to be prepared to take it at least to the 9th Circuit, possibly even to the SCOTUS and neither of them would have done that, it would have cost upwards of 500K
These cases do not appear to even be on point.
Also keep in mind that the State of California has campaign contribution limits...do you think the California legislature would change campaign limits if they felt that these cases somehow make campaign limits unconstitutional? LOL In a heartbeat!
SEE: http://www.fppc.ca.gov/bulletin/contribchart.pdf
I am SICK of the corruption in this hillbilly good ol' boy town
The citizens of this city deserve what is coming now that there is NO restrictions what a politician can be purchased for. Let the bidding begin!
We are SOOOOO SCREWED!
Looks like a good time to circulate a petition to change the City Charter.
Good post William.
I think it also would be helpful, in the interest of civility, if you would refrain from personal attacks in your comments and stick to the policy. Particularly since you seem unaware of what the law is. Thanks.
My personal opinion is that it's unfortunate that it's unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that IE's are "free speech" and can't be regulated in this fashion. The problem isn't with the City Council; it's with the U.S. Supreme Court. The City Attorney wisely is removing the ordinance so taxpayers won't have to defend what would be a slam dunk loss in any court.
The problem of IE's is growing. In the last election cycle, IE's outspent many of the campaigns by candidates themselves in races for the state legislature. They cannot officially coordinate with campaigns, however, though it seems like that line is crossed in many circumstances. Having run campaigns where IE's play, it's frustrating when the tone and the tenor of the campaign is more influenced by IE's than your own campaign. Particularly when most IE's are negative attacks.
What also should be shelved is the ridiculous campaign finance restrictions that the "good government" groups put forth for the last election. As a News & Review article pointed out at the time, these laws effectively protect incumbents. That's why NONE of the city council members up for re-election last year even were challenged.
It's time for a comprehensive review of the city's campaign finance laws. More important than anything is transparency, so we can see who's behind the candidates and the ads.
Also, the cases cited are not on point. The SCOTUS has declared that the legislature DOES have some ability to limit campaign contributions. As I stated before, campaign limits also affect the legislature, if they thought it was unconstitutional they would have taken this issue to court in a heartbeat.
Just making an uninformed statement that campaign contributions limits are somehow "unconstitutional" does not make it so. Especially coming form a campaign manager who has a vested and financial interest in having no limits. What scares me is that you are on the inside of Johnson's team...what other decisions or policies have you helped make that thwart democracy? I wonder!
In the end though the citizens will always be screwed by elected officials. Until we have publicly funded campaigns, and severe campaign contribution limits, nothing will change. These codified limits also do nothing to stop other quid pro qou, secret pay-to-play, back room deals and the other perks given to those running for office.
If you take Steve at his word...there is no corruption in our city...LOL We all know better than that Steve.
But give credit to Steven, campaign finance limits often benefit incumbents by protecting them against outsiders who are not moneyed themselves.
I find it a little hard to believe that you consider IE's a problem when you benefit from them, and use them, when it suits your purposes.
As for your last comment, I think it would be helpful if you re-read my comments. I don't like IE's. I believe campaigns should be able to control their own message. I've been on both sides of IE's in campaigns, and trust me, I wish they could be regulated or banned. But as long as the Supreme Court has ruled, they're here to stay.