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 th... William Jim Knapp 2009-04-05T13:18:04Z 2009-04-05T13:18:04Z

Dan, unlike most...I am an independent thinker...I may like Rand and what her principles are, but I also know the pragmatic limits of her philosophies.

Jim Knapp 2009-04-05T13:18:04Z Steven Maviglio 2009-04-03T04:36:47Z 2009-04-03T04:36:47Z

"John Galt," I would seriously ask you to read up on the law before you misrepresent it. The reporting requirements for IE's are much different than for campaigns. 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.

Steven Maviglio 2009-04-03T04:36:47Z Steven Maviglio 2009-04-03T04:33:56Z 2009-04-03T04:33:56Z

Actually, William, that's not true. Check your facts. The lawyer who raised the issue was Lance Olson, who represented the teachers union that launched a smear attack that even the Bee criticized. 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.

Steven Maviglio 2009-04-03T04:33:56Z Dan 2009-04-03T02:52:28Z 2009-04-03T02:52:28Z

Hmmm...some guy names himself after an Ayn Rand character and is bitching about the relaxation on campaign finance limits, regulations that are typically on the other side of free speech? But give credit to Steven, campaign finance limits often benefit incumbents by protecting them against outsiders who are not moneyed themselves.

Dan 2009-04-03T02:52:28Z Jim Knapp 2009-04-02T17:08:21Z 2009-04-02T17:08:21Z

LOL coming from you Steve...I will take your comment with a truckload of salt. You stated "More important than anything is transparency, so we can see who's behind the candidates and the ads." So you think that by publishing the names of contributors it will somehow prevent corruption? Well Steve they do that already. Transparency has nothing to do with it. Our corrupted elected officials do almost all of their corrupt acts in public and right in our face, it does not slow them down for one second. 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.

Jim Knapp 2009-04-02T17:08:21Z William Burg 2009-04-02T16:28:04Z 2009-04-02T16:28:04Z

Steven, in the interest of fully full disclosure, people supporting your campaign also ignored the ordinance, also threatened to sue the city, and also spent hundreds of thousands to smear Mayor Fargo. Because IE's are technically not part of the campaign, you can maintain a safe distance but gain the benefit of their advertising dollars and their at-best tenuous connections with the truth. 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.

William Burg 2009-04-02T16:28:04Z Steven Maviglio 2009-04-02T07:07:20Z 2009-04-02T07:07:20Z

The ordinance is totally unconstitutional -- and was ignored in the last election, mostly by supporters of Mayor Fargo who spent hundreds of thousands smearing then-candidate Mayor Johnson (you remember those ads by the plumbers). DISCLOSURE: I was Kevin Johnson's campaign manager -- and know about this ordinance all too well. 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.

Steven Maviglio 2009-04-02T07:07:20Z savemidtown 2009-04-02T06:28:48Z 2009-04-02T06:28:48Z

watching the video from last nights meeting - the council did pull this from the consent calendar and are scheduled to hear it in 'a couple of weeks' probably the April 14th meeting. Stay tuned.

savemidtown 2009-04-02T06:28:48Z Jim Knapp 2009-04-01T01:58:22Z 2009-04-01T01:58:22Z

Don't waste your breath...one thousand people could march on City Hall and they will do as they please, as they always have. 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.

Jim Knapp 2009-04-01T01:58:22Z George Jackson 2009-03-31T23:34:45Z 2009-03-31T23:34:45Z

wow, this is frightening! hope everyone calls their councilmember. We need cleaner, not dirtier elections in this City.

George Jackson 2009-03-31T23:34:45Z David Watts Barton 2009-03-31T21:35:19Z 2009-03-31T21:35:19Z

This is the sort of story one doesn't see much in the mainstream press, if anywhere. Excellent work, William. Will you please post something about the vote after tonight's meeting?

David Watts Barton 2009-03-31T21:35:19Z Jeff McCrory 2009-03-31T21:05:59Z 2009-03-31T21:05:59Z

Sneaky, sneaky City Council. Thanks for the catch, William.

Jeff McCrory 2009-03-31T21:05:59Z