pages: CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf, 22
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 22 | not have a cap on expenditure limits but has a cap on contribution limits; Hayward has a voluntary expenditure limit; Hayward's ordinance has a $50,000 expenditure cap; enforcement is one of political peer pressure rather than violation of civil penalties; Pleasanton has an expenditure limit tied to a dollar amount per registered voter with an escalator for inflation. Councilmember Matarrese stated everyone would point at the violator but there would be no civil penalty. The City Attorney stated the ordinance addresses what the City can do; the only thing missing is a voluntary agreement for a candidate to limit expenditures; a public financing matching fund would need to be created for enforcement. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the agreement would be enforceable with a public financing matching fund. The City Attorney stated enforcement would be not getting the match. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she supports the idea of campaign finance reform; the City should have a good ordinance, but this ordinance is not it; the ordinance has been rushed, is politically motivated, and has not had the proper public debate; the ordinance has not gone to the Sunshine Task Force or League of Women Voters; the League of California Cities has a resource on campaign finance which the Council has not reviewed; this ordinance is unfair; if someone decides to self fund the race there is no provision to give an escalator to anyone else so that the playing field would be level; there is no escalator for inflation; the ordinance is politically motivated because there seems to be a rush to get the ordinance in place before the November election; several candidates have already announced that they are running and have raised money; rules would be changed in the middle of the campaign cycle; candidates who file in July would be bound by a set of rules that people who got in early were not bound by; there is no provision saying that a candidate cannot transfer money into a campaign account for another race; if the ordinance passes in its current form, then everyone that has been campaigning should give back money that has been raised that violates the ordinance; it is more important to have the ordinance done right rather than quickly; a major barrier is being raised for people who have not already declared intent to run. Mayor Johnson stated that she thinks the ordinance is very basic finance reform; people that she has spoken to assume that the City already has an ordinance in place; waiting too long would be unfair to people running in the November election because they would not understand what the rules would be. Councilmember Gilmore inquired why rules are being changed in the middle of the campaign; stated candidates should give back money that has already been raised if the ordinance passes. Mayor Johnson stated candidates can ask each other to make said pledge but it would Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |