Election Reform Group Seeks SLNC Input
SILVER LAKE-At the request of the Los Angeles City Council, a west Los Angeles based election reform group called the California Clean Money Campaign (CCMC) is seeking input from the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council (SLNC) and other like groups in Los Angeles, to consider the idea of full public funding of city elections.
Reform groups like CCMC argue that publicly funded elections would be more open, inclusive, encourage more women and minorities to vote and elicit higher voter participation. CCMC also argues that full public funding makes elected officials accountable to voters, not special interest or big money donors. The City Council's request that neighborhood councils be involved in the issue of full public funding of elections was brought directly to the SLNC at their general board meeting on April 2nd by Wayne Williams, a CCMC representative.
The states of Arizona and Maine have had full public funding of election campaigns since 2000 and Connecticut adopted the idea this year. Cities to date that have also made the switch include Portland, Oregon and Albuquerque, New Mexico.
According to the CCMC, there are a variety of possible funding scenarios that enable cities to mix and match proposals with a blend of their own ideas. After attending CCMC sponsored workshops, on the matter, representatives from neighborhood councils are asked to complete questionnaires with their opinions on such issues as limiting personal funds, seed money and donor amounts.
SLNC co-chair Rusty Millar suggested the matter be directed to the group's Government Affairs Committee, headed by Loren Colin and Paul Neuman for further consideration.
If full public funding were adopted by the city of Los Angeles, it would influence elections of the mayor, city council, city controller and city attorney. The city currently spends $2.6 million on a partial funding program. According to the City Ethics Commission, to move over to a fully publicly funded model would require an additional $9 million. But other estimates weigh in between $6.1 to $8.8 million, depending on the final chosen proposal.
Experts say public funding minimizes excessive attack ads by special interests. "It doesn't ban independent expenditure," said Trent Lange, president of the CCMC. "That would be a violation of free speech."
According to Lange, public funding would match funds, dollar for dollar, in response to independent expenditures. As an example, he said, if an outside group spends $50,000 on an attack ad, the publicly funded opponent would automatically get funds to respond.
"Sometimes you'll find that independent expenditure committees will be more careful," Lange said, "because they'll know that whatever their attack is, their opponent will find the money to fight back. Some will still do it if they have a specific message, but if they're just doing it to smear candidates, they won't, because candidates will be able to respond to their smears."
See the article on Los Feliz Ledger website
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)