• Pros and Cons: Summary, Background and Documents
• Berkeley Clean Elections Act: Questions and Answers (on a separate page)
• Sherry Smith
• David Wilson

Summary

In June, the City council will decide whether or not to refer Clean Elections to the ballot. Clean Elections is a system of full public financing for local election. With this system, candidates may choose to seek public financing to run their campaigns (if they can collect a large number of $5 qualifying contributions). If candidates accept public funds, they agree to forego all private financing. Berkeley Voters could decide whether or not to use this system for local elections if the council puts it on the November 2006 Ballot.

The bill (as currently proposed) would include the following grant amounts and thresholds:

These amounts reflect historic spending by winning candidates vying for these offices.

Background

In November 2004, voters in the City of Berkeley considered Measure H, an initiative that would have brought full public financing of local elections. It was turned down by Berkeley voters, 58% to 42%. The proponents of the initiative are considering bringing it back in 2006, as they believe many of the concerns voters had last time with the initiative have been addressed.

In November 2004, the city was facing a major deficit. The city no longer faces this deficit. In 2004, there were 5 competing tax and bond initiatives, 6 with the school initiative. Voters rejected all of those proposals, except the schools initiative, and swept Measure H in as a tax initiative. In November 2006, there will be a BSEP renewal (a school tax renewal) and possibly a creek and stormdrain bond issue. The voters will not be asked for as much money.

Since November 2004, AB 583, Loni Hancock's statewide clean money bill, has gained tremendous ground. Finally, the League of Women Voters decided not to endorse Measure H in 2004, although they are now behind the Local Clean Elections Proposal. Given all of this, the proponents think November 2006 is a good time to ask the voters to reconsider the proposal. Also, the cost has been slightly modified, and the threshold requirements to qualify have been increased, due to concerns that fringe candidates might be able to run.

Background written by Sam Ferguson.

Public Documents

• Berkeley Clean Elections Act: Text of the proposed law (05/02/2006 version) File size: 0.9MB
• Berkeley Clean Elections Act Q&A File size: 0.7MB
• Fair Campaign Practices Commission recommendation June 27, 2006 File size: 0.3MB
• Worthington's Agenda Item for July 11 City Council Meeting File size: 0.09MB

Sherry Smith

President of the Berkeley/Albany/Emeryville League of Women Voters

Berkeley needs clean elections. The cost of campaigns is too high, and continues to increase every year. Mayoral candidates are spending nearly $10 a vote. They must raise more than $150 every day for the four years they are in office, INCLUDING WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS. That's $1,050 a week, or $4,200 a month. A total of nearly one-quarter million dollars! And it's not necessarily the people most interested in seeing Berkeley pass good policy who write those checks day-in and day-out. It's the people who have financial interests that can be affected by city policy who write those checks.

But, it's not the fault of our elected officials. We have tolerated this system for far too long as citizens. It's a system that stresses fundraising and money, not organizing, constituent relations and good ideas. It's the entire process that is corrupt. Just as we would never dream of letting private interests pay the salaries of our elected officials, we should not let private interests pay for elections. Elections are a public good, and need to be supported by the public. And for just the price of a latte and a muffin per voter.

With Clean Elections, all good candidates, regardless of their fundraising abilities, will have the chance to run for office. Elections will be based on a candidate's ideas, organizing and community support, not their ability to raise dollars. And, once in office, our elected officials can concentrate on the pressing issues before the city, not where they're going to get their next contribution. It will free up elected officials to do the job we elected them to do!

Clean Elections will broaden the diversity of candidates and encourage competition. The incumbent advantage will be significantly diminished. We will be more assured of real competition come election day, the way democracy is supposed to work, not just when an incumbent leaves their seat.

Finally, Berkeley can work simultaneously at cleaning up Berkeley and cleaning up the state. This is a great way to seize the day and work towards cleaning up our political system, with the hopes of ultimately passing Clean Elections at the federal level.

Vote Yes for Clean Elections

David Wilson

Attorney and Berkeley Resident

While the exact text of this proposal is still being worked out, it already appears that there are strong arguments against it.

1. This is almost a carbon copy of what the voters rejected overwhelmingly in November, 2004. It is supported by a lot of outsiders who want to make Berkeley a guinea pig for something that has yet to be even tried elsewhere. Indeed public financing of campaigns has only been meaningfully implemented at the national level, and many are critical of the results: the unavoidable fact is that with public funding more is being spent on national campaigns and the influence of big money is stronger than ever.
2. The reason for this is the "soft money" exception, which may be constitutionally unavoidable. The Berkeley proposal continues to allow "independent committees" to fund campaigns for particular candidates. This would allow unions and developers (mentioning only two prominent players in Berkeley politics) to "independently" spend money on their favored candidate. There is no real way to control this except by dumping more and more public money into the process.
3. In 2004 Berkeley was faced with a fiscal crisis that has not gone away. While increased transfer tax revenues have staved off the day of reckoning, Berkeley is still faced with union contracts, which require 100% contributions to hugely generous medical care and pension benefits, and overall increases far in excess of inflation. The city has also got to deal with tens of millions in unfunded liabilities for dilapidated infrastructure. Time after time the Council has agreed that no new program should be adopted without an identified source of revenues, and time after time they break their promise. The public funding measure is a classic example: careful reading reveals that there is no real cap on maximum expenditures for the program. The promise to suspend the program "if the city runs out of money" is meaningless when you realize that this program, and funds for it, is to be guaranteed in the City Charter. Other far more critical programs have no such guarantee: when push comes to shove, police and fire protection will be cut, but funds will continue to flow to the politicians
4. So we come to the nub of it: if the City commits to spending a half million (or more) per year funding political campaigns, the money can only come from increased property taxes. Berkeley homeowners (because of other misguided city policies) are probably no more than 40% of the City's population; yet they pay most of the bills for everyone else. Their taxes and fees are higher than any other municipality in the state if not the nation. When you add the sheer cost of buying a home in this town, you can see that only the very wealthy will be able to live here.
5. Limited space does not allow me to examine every detail of the proposal, but two deserve to be singled out. One is the implication that wealthy individuals control Berkeley politics. How could this be true in a City were no individual can contribute more than $250 to a political candidate? The other is the fact that the funds allocated would be managed by the Fair Campaign Practices Commission. This commission is appointed by incumbent council members and the Mayor, and serves at their pleasure. The Commission has already been accused of being the tool of the Council majority, and of strictly enforcing Berkeley's complex rules against challengers while winking at violations by incumbents. Whether or not this is true is less important than the fact that there would be an appearance of impropriety, and, without question, a built-in bias in favor of the candidates who appoint the commissioners.
6. This is not the time or place for an untried experiment of this sort.

Top