Irony Abounds in Proposal on Campaign Fund
Like an onion that hides one layer behind the next, the
effort to have the city pay for elections in San Jose is
wrapped in irony and yet more irony. But because it changes
the entry requirements for candidates, it matters as much
as district elections did to the city's political
history.
I'm for it, though it will hardly cure all ills. Public
financing has the potential to upset the labor-development
alliance that now rules the council. It would broaden the
field of candidates and encourage dissent, not bad things
in a system that often penalizes open disagreement.
It would work like this: To qualify to run for mayor, a
candidate would have to amass a number of token
contributions -- say 2,000 donations of $5 apiece (or
one-tenth that number for council). The city would pay the
rest, up to 70 percent or 80 percent of the current limit.
In a primary election, that would mean roughly $500,000 per
candidate. The yearly cost for council and mayoral
elections is estimated at $3.5 million.
A political primer
In a rich irony, this is being proposed by the tag team of
Mayor Ron Gonzales and his top aide, Joe Guerra, who have
been pummeled for their role in the Norcal garbage scandal
for nearly a year. Suddenly, the guys who have been targets
of ethics attacks are grabbing the mantle of reform.
Not surprisingly, this comes salted with the usual Gonzales
disingenuousness. Having denounced the Mercury News on the
radio recently as ``irrelevant,'' he now says that a big
reason for public financing is to eliminate the local
media's presumption of corruption at City Hall.
But maybe the important thing is that the idea came at all,
which leads me to a second irony: San Jose's left-leaning
labor-development coalition, which includes people who
backed district elections more than two decades ago in the
name of lessening the role of money in politics, has
quietly raised questions about the Gonzales' proposal.
Council member Nora Campos has argued that the panel
examining public financing should be more diverse. And Vice
Mayor Cindy Chavez, while voting to study public financing,
asked to preserve the option of a public vote on the
measure. If that happens, it will probably die: People
dislike financing political mailers, particularly hit
mail.
Upsetting the cart
Why would development or labor interests be skeptical? The
answer isn't hard. If the city offers public financing, it
will be easier to run for office. It's like offering
scholarships to kids who would ordinarily not go to
college. And that will dilute the power of the developer
money that sustains the current majority.
As the system stands now, a neighborhood candidate looking
to run for council has to raise $90,000 to $100,000. There
are two ways to do that: Fund yourself or turn to
development interests, the largest source of campaign
contributions. Public financing offers a third route,
leaving politicians less beholden to special interests. An
anti-Coyote Valley development candidate like ex-Councilman
David Pandori can fight on more level ground.
I'm not so naive as to believe that public financing will
end all inequities. For starters, incumbents have a huge
advantage in any system. Labor phone banks will still
matter. And development or labor can always turn to
so-called independent expenditures -- a blast from an
unknown committee -- to elect their candidate, though most
public financing systems have mechanisms to counteract
this.
Much of the devil is in the details. You might quibble
about thresholds. The important point is this: Despite our
distaste for funding hit mail, public financing lets us
hear views that might ordinarily be discouraged. It reduces
political debts. And if we can figure out how to pay for
it, it's no shabby investment.
(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.)