S.F. Public Financing Subsidizes Machine Candidates
 |
Nearly a decade later, this is the reality: San Francisco elections are awash in soft money and public financing essentially functions as a subsidy to machine candidates backed by special interest groups. That's the conclusion I came to after reading a largely overlooked report on campaign spending in the 2008 supervisorial races published by the Ethics Commission.
The report found that third-party political action committees, which currently don't have to bother with pesky contribution limits like individual candidates do, spent $1.3 million in last year's supe races (see page 15 of the report). In 2006, third-party PACs only spent $543,000; in 2004, they spent only $251,000.
The primary reason for the spike in soft money is that the rules of the game changed prior to last year's election. A 2007 court ruling threw out donation limits on contributions to third-party PACs, a major component of Prop. O. That eliminated any chance of leveling the playing field between independent candidates and machine candidates -- the dream of Prop. O supporters.
So what we have left is a bastardized remnant of Prop. O. Now, candidates backed by public employee unions or downtown business interests enjoy a direct municipal subsidy thanks to public financing and an indirect subsidy from unregulated PACs. Consider these facts from the 2008 race:
• The non-incumbent candidates who won all accepted public assistance and had major institutional support from public employee unions or the local arm of the Democratic Party. Downtown-backed candidates who accepted public funds came in second in districts 1 and 11. No independent candidate in the three swing districts (1, 3, 11) placed better than third.
• The candidate receiving the most public funds, David Chiu ($123,445), was endorsed by the Democratic Party and backed by the San Francisco Labor Council, which includes the city's largest union, SEIU Local 1021. Not exactly someone hurting for resources. In addition to the $330,000 Chiu's own campaign spent (the most in the District 3 race), The Labor Council and the Democratic Party spent nearly $140,000 on Chiu's behalf, campaign finance records show. (Chiu won.)
• The candidate who received the second-highest amount of public funds, Asha Safai ($105,033), was backed by the mayor and downtown business committees. Safai came in second place in the District 11 race to John Avalos, a candidate supported by the Democratic Party and labor (which spent nearly $160,000 on Avalos' behalf). Avalos received $87,745 in public funds.
The Ethics Commission asked for feedback about how insiders thought the system worked. One of the more interesting responses relating to soft-money PACs was that "third parties had to spend because unqualified candidates got public funds." Of course, that prompts the question what, eh, qualifies as "unqualified." While the report doesn't offer any clarification, it's safe to assume that it means candidates not supported by the powers that be on the left or right.
Before the 2007 court ruling, you could reasonably argue that San Francisco's campaign finance rules had created a more level playing field in local politics. But as the 2008 election results demonstrate, without a check on soft money in city races, this just isn't the case anymore. Public financing in and of itself is not a sufficient equalizer.
So meet the new political system, same as the old one -- actually worse, considering large amounts of public funds are now involved: Special interests spend metric shitloads of money to: 1. Make sure their handpicked candidates win, and; 2. Squelch any chance of the people electing someone who may have good ideas, but doesn't have support of the big shots.
6 comment(s) / Post a Comment
I'm unsure what the problem is. IF the goal of the legislation was to change who gets elected and who does not, them I'm GLAD it's being "thwarted". The government does not have the right to ensure the outcome of elections favor only one side. Go ask the Iranians about how that works out.
San Francisco has been passing gimmicks for quite some time now to do just that. The problem is that if a candidate is a no-name with no real support or base, they aren't going to win, no matter how many of these things you pass.
Also, the people got public funds played by "the rules." They had to comply with the requirements, pay a treasurer to maintain the books, and had a base of support willing to donate the max amount. If Joe or Jane Nobody thinks they can win an election, IRV or not, by just doodling around town and not doing the organizing and hard work it takes to win in a multi candidate race, they're smoking too much medical marijuana.
Finally, why is freedom of speech such a big problem? The courts have asserted for decades that people can organized together to make their voices heard. Sure it's frustrating when people We Deem Bad get their act together and organize, but guess what? They did. I don't see any bands of non-union or non-business people putting in the time and effort to have a say in these races. If they did, they might be successful. Might. Remember we can't predetermine outcomes (see Iran, again)
Finally, spending of money is never an assurance of a win. Go ask Supervisor Safai'i or the victorious Realtors about how things worked out for them.
Posted On: Friday, Jul. 10 2009 @ 8:45AMWhy did David Chiu get more public money than any other candidate? Because his main opponent, Joe Alioto, spent more money than any other candidate in the whole City.
The way the system works is -- a candidate who takes public financing agrees to a spending limit. But if their opponent "busts the cap," the Ethics Commission allows them to raise more ... and they get matching funds. During that race, Alioto kept spending more and more business and real estate money ... and the Ethics Commission had to keep playing "catch up" by giving Chiu permission to spend more.
I was volunteering on David Chiu's campaign, and spent a lot of time with the candidate during the past two weeks. Poor guy had to spend a lot of time on the phone raising money rather than talk to voters, because Alioto kept busting the cap. I really felt for him ...
Posted On: Friday, Jul. 10 2009 @ 10:22AMIn the District 3 race, one can certainly make a reasonable case that public financing leveled the playing field for Chiu. But was Chiu a truly disadvantaged candidate like, say, Tony Gantner? No. He had the Labor Council and SEIU behind him, the endorsement of the incumbent and the DCCC. Paul, you supported Chiu, so of course it seems fair and reasonable that public money was used to make your guy more competitive. In my mind, though, ]the public was subsidizing one political machine to compete with another one in the D3 race.
One thing I didn’t touch on in the post was that the political machines in SF have changed since 2000. Back then, everyone was mad about all the independent expenditures spent on Willie Brown’s behalf. Prop. O -- like the entire 2000 election -- was a reaction the excesses of the Brown-downtown machine. At the time, a progressive like Chris Daly was a disadvantaged indie candidate. Not anymore. Now Daly and the left control the local Democratic Party and are allies with the city’s largest public employee union, which played a critical role in last year’s elections. In other words, there is now a progressive machine, not just a downtown machine. I think you could argue that Prop. O (like district elections) was designed to make lefties more competitive, but as it turned out the lefties became more competitive the old fashioned way -- by pandering to special interests with lots of resources.
Greg, I’m not saying people didn’t follow the rules; I’m just saying the rules are stupid. ... Re: the Realtors Association, point taken. It wasted nearly $400K on ineffective attack ads against Mar, Chiu and Avalos. If you look at the Ethics report, you’ll see that downtown spent most of its money on hit pieces. Labor spent its $450K much more wisely, supporting its own rather than bashing its enemies (which makes little sense in a multi-way race).
Is the case really being made here that the Labor Council and the SEIU combined are the equal and opposite of corporate San Francisco? Do the number$ add up to make that case? Organized labor can't even afford to be on life support, can they really afford to be that influential? What was the last citywide election in which labor was decisive?
If the balance were even, perhaps we'd be seeing equitable political outcomes between progressive and downtown, but as it is, progressives end up winning 1/3 of the time on policy, at best. Somehow, SEIU andlelight vigils to save public health don't rate when compared to meetings where corporate titans call Newsom on the carpet demanding more concessions and corporate welfare.
Public financing is one antidote to the constraints imposed by the Supreme Court on the ability of government to limit campaign contributions and expenditures which has gained traction nationwide. Don't go "post hoc ergo propter hoc" on us tying all of the 2000 election results to reaction to Brown. PF had a life of its own separate from Brown's corrupt joy ride.
Progressives have figured out one thing in San Francisco politics, and that is when we have an attractive candidate, how to run and win a district supervisors race using intimate, grassroots, door-to-door techniques.
SEIU, for all their myriad faults, has been a valuable partner in running grassroots district supe campaigns, because their members are generally working people who live in San Francisco and have skin in the game from both angles. But progressive non-labor candidates can win against progressive labor candidates as in D5 in 2004.
Downtown, on the other hand, wouldn't know grassroots unless they read it in a Newsom press release, and prefers to run an anonymous mail drop campaign attacking the heretics. This is because they see San Francisco as a place for them to run their lucrative extraction industries, not a city of interconnected communities where people live. And due to this, they have no cultural connection to the electorate they fear too much to be intimate with, and always aim their heavy fire appalling and wide.
Do you really think that progressives are coherent in motivation and goal sufficiently for there to be a political machine anywhere as efficient as Brown/Burton? Downtown is magnetized by money, by the City and its entitlements as an ATM, which imposes discipline. Progressives by fickle values and are all over the place. I believe that it is testament to the hunger of San Franciscans for something resembling intimate, accessible democracy that progressives have managed to chalk up a winning streak over the past decade.
-marc
Posted On: Saturday, Jul. 11 2009 @ 8:48AMPublic Financing is not a panacea. It provides a floor for public debate. It also provides a check and balance to government abuse. So if the engineering community feels that building 1,000 foot super highrises (the tallest in the nation) on liquefaction-able ground is dangerous, they have up to $1.3 million to convey their concern. If the neighborhoods feel that Downtown or Developers are running City Hall, they have $1.3 million to pull the covers.
So the glass is half-full, not half-empty. Public Financing cannot reverse the U.S.Supreme Court decision that says soft money equals speech.
Charley Marsteller, former Chair, S.F.Common Cause
Posted On: Saturday, Jul. 11 2009 @ 9:06AMThis article does not seem to understand how public financing works. The author claims to want to allow independent voices to compete, while arguing that the one thing that DOES allow them to compete, public financing, is somehow a problem.
1. The article claims that public financing is a subsidy to "machine" candidates - in reality public financing helped level the playing field for many candidates who weren't backed by any institutions at all. For examples, in the races cited, several candidates received public financing, not just those who were backed by institutions. So that instead of having no resources, those candidates were in fact able to wage competitive campaigns. But, independent expenditures do still affect the outcome, which is why publicly financed candidates need more resources to compete against them, not less, as the author suggests we should do.
2. Despite the numbers cited in this article, big business interests almost always have way more to spend on elections than labor unions. Public financing has been effective at ensuring that candidates who represent the interests of the middle class and poor are competing on a level playing field, unlike most places in the country (and SF in the past) where big business candidates win by virtue of consistently higher funding levels. And in fact, the outcome of the last election showed that candidates representing the interests of the non-rich did win in many cases.
The point of public financing is not to ensure any particular outcome, but simply to ensure that the process is more fair, and that those who are good candidates have adequate resources to reach voters. Perfect? No. But a big help? Yes. So, why is the author suggesting that we get rid of it altogether?
Rob Arnow
San Franciscans for Voter Owned Elections
www.voterownedelections.org
foam order.com