$C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\About CCSR\About CCSR.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Beta\index.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Links\Links.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Get Involved\Get Involved.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Mailing List Sign-up\Mailing List Sign-up.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Contacting CCSR\Contacting CCSR.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Archive\Archive.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Issues\Issues.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Upcoming Events\Upcoming Events.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\History\History.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Legacy of Dick Day\Legacy of Dick Day.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Beta\index.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Links\Links.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Get Involved\Get Involved.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Mailing List Sign-up\Mailing List Sign-up.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Contacting CCSR\Contacting CCSR.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Archive\Archive.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Issues\Issues.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Upcoming Events\Upcoming Events.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\History\History.htm$ $C:\Documents and Settings\jdupre\My Documents\My Webs\CCSR\Legacy of Dick Day\Legacy of Dick Day.htm$

	Campaign Finance Reform
	FAQs
	FAQs
	Why does the City of Santa Rosa need campaign finance reform? The huge sums of money necessary to finance a City Council campaign are undermining the integrity of our City Government in the following ways: § Qualified and committed citizens who do not have the ability to raise the huge amount of campaign funds necessary to win are being excluded from the leadership positions in our City. Santa Rosa City Council candidates who raise and spend large sums of money have an advantage over challengers. that is unfair and unjust. § Inherent to the high cost of election campaigning is the specter of improper influence, real or potential, exercised by campaign contributors over elected officials. The amount needed to be competitive in a Santa Rosa City Council election is now well over $60,000. The top spender in this last election was over $90,000. Donations to campaigns can come from anyone, however, big business interests in a “friendly” Council are the biggest contributors. § The current City Council consists of affluent Anglos who live in the Northeast portion of Santa Rosa. The views and issues of a large population of our City are under represented, especially people of color and citizens who reside in the West and Southwest portions of Santa Rosa. The dramatic imbalance in the amount of money needed to run a competitive campaign keeps qualified candidates of lower income from positions of leadership in our City. What is our City Council required to do? The citizens of Santa Rosa clearly demonstrated their support for substantive campaign finance reform (including public financing) with the passage of Measure O in November 2002. 1) Santa Rosa voters overwhelmingly approved Measure O in November 2002 by 62.8%, nearly a two-to-one margin. 2) Measure O specifically directs the Santa Rosa City Council to implement public financing for qualifying city council candidates. Wording on the election ballot clearly stated what the voters were voting for, including “Requires the City Council to enact measures which… provide for public financing of Council election campaigns.” In addition, the Voter’s Pamphlet mailed to every voter in Santa Rosa contained the “Santa Rosa City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis” of Measure O, which states: “Measure O, if approved by a majority of those voting on the measure, will add a new section to the Charter of the City of Santa Rosa which requires the City Council to enact, by ordinance, election campaign finance reform measures which include the following: ־ New limits on Council election campaign contributions that are lower than $1,000. ־ A new schedule for reporting election campaign contributions for all Council candidates, including all independent expenditures that allow the greatest public knowledge of all such campaign contributions ־ *Provisions that provide for public financing of Council election campaigns.” The same City Attorney’s Analysis goes on to clarify further: “The extent of such public funding and the conditions under which it is to be made available is left to the Council under Measure O. It is common in providing such public funding to require candidates who accept the funding to agree to limit their campaign expenditures to an amount which is established as part of the public funding conditions.” Other California cities that provide public financing for campaigns are Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Long Beach. In each case, the public financing is monetary funding of campaigns and candidates are required to agree to voluntary spending limits. Six states - Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Arizona, New Mexico, and North Carolina have adopted public financing for statewide elections. In each case, the public financing is monetary funding of campaigns and candidates are required to agree to voluntary spending limits. Maine and Arizona have the most complete programs, and in each state, a significant number of publicly financed candidates have been successful at the polls. What is the position of Concerned Citizens for Santa Rosa?* Concerned Citizens for Santa Rosa has developed a position paper on campaign finance reform that contains five major points. CFR Position Paper What is the current position of our City Council? What reform measures are being considered? With the notable exception of public financing, the majority of the City Council appears to be considering enacting revisions to the city code that are consistent with the provisions of Measure O. In fact, the method being considered by the Council of providing public financing to candidates will actually increase the unfair advantage of well-financed candidates. Rather than provide public funds to qualified candidates who limit their campaign expenditures, it would give public funds to all candidates no matter how much they spend. CCSR’s recommendation is to provide a candidate a maximum of $10,000 per candidate on a ratio of $1 to every $3 raised. The money would only be provided to candidates who agree to spend $40,000 or less. As an alternative to public financing, CCSR has suggested that the City send a “Bulletin” (current quarterly publication known as UPDATE) to all voters with candidate information. However, only candidates who agree to limit their spending would be included. The misguided proposal by some Council members to allow public funds to be spent on behalf of all candidates no matter how much they spend does nothing to limit sky rocketing campaign spending. The “carrot” to limit spending would not exist and thus candidates would have no incentive for limiting spending. We are not aware of any jurisdiction in the United States that provides public funds to candidates without some sort of spending limit being required. If this rule applied in 2002 the candidate receiving the most votes (who had never run for office before) spent over $90,000 would have unfairly received free advertising at the expense of the public as a bonus. The intent of Measure O is very clear,… The voters wanted the influence of money reduced in City Elections by using public funds to help level the playing field. This is a mandate to create incentives to limiting the amount of money being spent, not to increase it. For the Council to adopt any measure that includes public financing without spending limits would be a violation of the charge given to them by the voters in the approval of Measure O. What are the objections that some SR Council Members have raised to the adoption of campaign finance reform… especially public financing? Objection #1 Public financing of campaigns is not needed because a candidate has the ability to organize walkers to talk with the voters in each precinct. The ability to do grassroots campaigning is the same for everyone to a certain degree. However, candidates who have jobs, are low income, parents, or who are disabled have a distinct disadvantage to candidates who are wealthy or retired and can campaign everyday, all day. There are over 100 precincts in Santa Rosa. It takes about one full day for a person to walk one precinct. A working parent has a limited amount of time to campaign and can only walk a limited number of neighborhoods. In comparison, wealthy candidates are able to campaign more (precinct walking and meeting voters) … AND purchase an unlimited number of mailers, signs, and TV/radio advertisements that their opponents cannot afford. Objection #2 Public funds given to candidates could be used for negative mail. Currently, a candidate is free to say, print or advertise whatever they believe is appropriate when campaigning. To put restrictions on what a candidate can say if using public funds would give an unfair advantage to the wealthy candidate, as they would be under no restrictions. Plus, wealthy candidates have the ability to pay for expensive citywide mailers and advertising without any restriction on content. The best method to promote clean campaign practices and not restrict a candidate of their First Amendment rights is for all candidates to voluntarily agree to the Fair Political Practices Commission “Code of Fair Campaign Practices.” Objection #3 The impact of citizen groups who walk door-to-door promoting under funded candidates balances out the large amount of funds expended by wealthy candidates. Any group or organization can endorse any candidate of their choice. By staying within the contribution limits, they can legally show their support by contributing money or making an in-kind donation (such as distributing information door-to-door). This type of support is not limited to just financially-challenged candidates—wealthy candidates can, and do, have this type of grassroots support. In fact, this has been the case in recent elections. Opposing candidates have had independent groups walking precincts promoting their candidacies (i.e. Tell the Truth and Sonoma County Conservations Action). This type of citizen involvement should be encouraged, not discouraged. However, there is no advantage this type of activity gives to under-funded candidates. In fact, wealthy candidates have the ability to expend unlimited amounts of money for advertising while at the same time benefiting from the grassroots efforts of groups and organizations. Objection #4 People didn’t know what they were voting for. They didn’t know what public financing meant. The ballot statement clearly stated that Measure O included public financing, including the wording “Requires the City Council to enact measures which… provide for public financing of Council election campaigns.” In addition, the Voter’s Pamphlet mailed to every voter in Santa Rosa contained the “Santa Rosa the City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis”, as quoted above, acknowledges that Measure O requires public financing and that accepting an expenditure limit is expected as a condition to obtain public financing. The City Council was directed by the voters of Santa Rosa (with the overwhelming passage of Measure O) to implement public financing. To not implement the will of the people would betray the public’s trust. It would also be a deliberate flaunting of the law and invite legal recourse. If it were not meant seriously, the statement that the Santa Rosa voters didn’t know what they were voting for would be comical. The people of Santa Rosa on the whole are educated and thoughtful voters. It is disappointing that those on the Council opposed to public financing have resorted to denigrating their own citizens as a ploy to avoid their duty. Objection #5 We can’t give precious tax dollars to politicians when we are cutting City services. Under the CCSR recommendation, the amount of public funds per qualifying candidate would be $10,000. Cities with similar public funding provisions find that the actual amount of funds is substantially less then the maximum. The projected cost would be under $100,000 per election. This amount of money would: · Stop the explosion in campaign spending · Give candidates who are of low income, who work, and who are parents an opportunity to serve on our City Council · Level the playing field among candidates of all income levels · Allow disenfranchised citizens to have their own representation on the City Council.