Comments on: The grassroots case for increased campaign finance limits http://futureoaklandblog.com/2010/03/the-grassroots-case-for-increased-campaign-finance-limits/ Decisions today shape the city tomorrow. Thu, 01 Jul 2010 22:28:28 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Ethics Commission considers increasing campaign donation & spending limits tonight : A Better Oakland http://futureoaklandblog.com/2010/03/the-grassroots-case-for-increased-campaign-finance-limits/#comment-1253 Ethics Commission considers increasing campaign donation & spending limits tonight : A Better Oakland Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:57:57 +0000 http://futureoaklandblog.com/?p=671#comment-1253 [...] may have read about this proposal yesterday on FutureOakland or maybe earlier in Jean Quan’s hysterical [...] [...] may have read about this proposal yesterday on FutureOakland or maybe earlier in Jean Quan’s hysterical [...]

]]> By: John Klein http://futureoaklandblog.com/2010/03/the-grassroots-case-for-increased-campaign-finance-limits/#comment-1252 John Klein Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:29:47 +0000 http://futureoaklandblog.com/?p=671#comment-1252 Well, since the council is the local law-making body, that is the nature of the beast. But, Russo's recommendation is just out of line - the council never asked about campaign limits so he exceeded his authority by raising the issue. Seems silly or technical, but the reason is so that the City Attorney is not out there through his weight around in public without Council or Mayor oversight or approval. And that is exactly what Russo is doing here. He just though it would be a good idea to suggest this - that's not his job. Well, since the council is the local law-making body, that is the nature of the beast. But, Russo’s recommendation is just out of line – the council never asked about campaign limits so he exceeded his authority by raising the issue.

Seems silly or technical, but the reason is so that the City Attorney is not out there through his weight around in public without Council or Mayor oversight or approval. And that is exactly what Russo is doing here. He just though it would be a good idea to suggest this – that’s not his job.

]]> By: dto510 http://futureoaklandblog.com/2010/03/the-grassroots-case-for-increased-campaign-finance-limits/#comment-1251 dto510 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:03:15 +0000 http://futureoaklandblog.com/?p=671#comment-1251 Thanks for bringing up the inherent conflict of interest in the Council passing campaign finance rules that apply to themselves. As I noted above, Councilmember Quan is telling her supporters to oppose increasing donation limits because she thinks that will help her opponent Don Perata more than it will help her. I disagree with her assessment, since Mr. Perata controls an unregulated campaign account. But it's true that it's unseemly for politicians to impose campaign rules that benefit themselves, as strict donation limits do. Thanks for bringing up the inherent conflict of interest in the Council passing campaign finance rules that apply to themselves. As I noted above, Councilmember Quan is telling her supporters to oppose increasing donation limits because she thinks that will help her opponent Don Perata more than it will help her. I disagree with her assessment, since Mr. Perata controls an unregulated campaign account. But it’s true that it’s unseemly for politicians to impose campaign rules that benefit themselves, as strict donation limits do.

]]> By: John Klein http://futureoaklandblog.com/2010/03/the-grassroots-case-for-increased-campaign-finance-limits/#comment-1250 John Klein Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:45:18 +0000 http://futureoaklandblog.com/?p=671#comment-1250 The City Attorney’s recommendation to increase campaign contribution limits must be withdrawn because it exceeds the authority granted to the City Attorney by the City Charter. In making the recommendation to increase campaign contribution limits, The City Attorney exceeded his authority under City Charter section 401(6) Powers of the City Attorney. The City Attorney does not have the authority to propose legislation unless directed to do so by the Mayor or City Council. No such direction was given to the City Attorney regarding campaign contribution limits nor does he cite any as a basis for making the recommendation. Below is a list of duties and powers the City Attorney may exercise upon request of the City Council or Mayor. ‘The City Attorney shall render written legal opinions when the same are requested in writing by the Mayor or a member of the Council…’ ‘He or she shall draft such ordinances, resolutions, contracts and other legal documents as directed by the Council or requested by the Mayor…’ ‘He or she shall commence legal proceedings when directed by the City Council.” ‘He or she shall not settle or dismiss any litigation…unless…authorized to do so by the Council.’ As can clearly be seen, the City Attorney may act only when directed by the City Council or Mayor, nor does the City Attorney have the authority to make a recommendation without a request from the City Council or Mayor. Moreover, even if the City Council requested a report and recommendations about RCV from the City Attorney, nothing relating to campaign contribution limits is found in the RCV language. The City Attorney’s proposed changes are wholly unrelated to RCV and neither the City Council nor Mayor asked for such a recommendation. The only discussion of expenditures in the ordinance relate to the designation of election cycles for the purpose of accounting for campaign spending. This is wholly separate and unrelated to campaign contribution limits. Perhaps the City Attorney thought he could, by virtue of his position, impose a personal preference. He is, after all, an elected official bound by the same campaign contribution limits. It is an abuse of his position as City Attorney to make a recommendation which ultimately benefits his own future political campaigns. The City Attorney’s recommendation to increase campaign contribution limits must be withdrawn because it exceeds the authority granted to the City Attorney by the City Charter.

In making the recommendation to increase campaign contribution limits, The City Attorney exceeded his authority under City Charter section 401(6) Powers of the City Attorney. The City Attorney does not have the authority to propose legislation unless directed to do so by the Mayor or City Council. No such direction was given to the City Attorney regarding campaign contribution limits nor does he cite any as a basis for making the recommendation. Below is a list of duties and powers the City Attorney may exercise upon request of the City Council or Mayor.

‘The City Attorney shall render written legal opinions when the same are requested in writing by the Mayor or a member of the Council…’

‘He or she shall draft such ordinances, resolutions, contracts and other legal documents as directed by the Council or requested by the Mayor…’

‘He or she shall commence legal proceedings when directed by the City Council.”

‘He or she shall not settle or dismiss any litigation…unless…authorized to do so by the Council.’

As can clearly be seen, the City Attorney may act only when directed by the City Council or Mayor, nor does the City Attorney have the authority to make a recommendation without a request from the City Council or Mayor.

Moreover, even if the City Council requested a report and recommendations about RCV from the City Attorney, nothing relating to campaign contribution limits is found in the RCV language. The City Attorney’s proposed changes are wholly unrelated to RCV and neither the City Council nor Mayor asked for such a recommendation. The only discussion of expenditures in the ordinance relate to the designation of election cycles for the purpose of accounting for campaign spending. This is wholly separate and unrelated to campaign contribution limits.

Perhaps the City Attorney thought he could, by virtue of his position, impose a personal preference. He is, after all, an elected official bound by the same campaign contribution limits. It is an abuse of his position as City Attorney to make a recommendation which ultimately benefits his own future political campaigns.

]]> By: dto510 http://futureoaklandblog.com/2010/03/the-grassroots-case-for-increased-campaign-finance-limits/#comment-1249 dto510 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:40:21 +0000 http://futureoaklandblog.com/?p=671#comment-1249 Not unless they want to win. Not unless they want to win.

]]> By: John Klein http://futureoaklandblog.com/2010/03/the-grassroots-case-for-increased-campaign-finance-limits/#comment-1248 John Klein Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:38:14 +0000 http://futureoaklandblog.com/?p=671#comment-1248 Russo said candidates will be required to do more outreach. This is nonesense. Being a candidate at all is voluntary, and so is the amount of outreach. Candidates are not required to do any outreach. Russo said candidates will be required to do more outreach. This is nonesense. Being a candidate at all is voluntary, and so is the amount of outreach. Candidates are not required to do any outreach.

]]> By: dto510 http://futureoaklandblog.com/2010/03/the-grassroots-case-for-increased-campaign-finance-limits/#comment-1247 dto510 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:10:26 +0000 http://futureoaklandblog.com/?p=671#comment-1247 Good question. I would guess that Pat McCullough also had a lot of maxed-out donations as a percentage of the total, but the survey linked above says he didn't file required campaign reports. Aimee Allison was very successful at obtaining matching funds while Pat Kernighan didn't participate in matching funds, so the numbers aren't comparable because Purnell's report is skewed. Looking at the survey, <a href="http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/public_ethics/March-04-2010/ITEM-B-spl-mtg-Attachment-4.pdf" rel="nofollow">which is also available here (pdf)</a>, there isn't a clear pattern, but again the numbers are pretty bad. I should also point out that money means more to challengers than it does to incumbents, because without a thriving local mass media a challenger has to spend more than an incumbent to raise name recognition. Good question. I would guess that Pat McCullough also had a lot of maxed-out donations as a percentage of the total, but the survey linked above says he didn’t file required campaign reports. Aimee Allison was very successful at obtaining matching funds while Pat Kernighan didn’t participate in matching funds, so the numbers aren’t comparable because Purnell’s report is skewed. Looking at the survey, which is also available here (pdf), there isn’t a clear pattern, but again the numbers are pretty bad.

I should also point out that money means more to challengers than it does to incumbents, because without a thriving local mass media a challenger has to spend more than an incumbent to raise name recognition.

]]> By: Max Allstadt http://futureoaklandblog.com/2010/03/the-grassroots-case-for-increased-campaign-finance-limits/#comment-1246 Max Allstadt Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:50:51 +0000 http://futureoaklandblog.com/?p=671#comment-1246 OK, so should we look only at credible challengers like Sean and Aimee Allison? Or should folks like Pat McCullough, who lost by a very large margin, be considered in the calculus. For that matter, do Allison's numbers support what you surmised from Sean's? That's the easiest comparison to add to this. OK, so should we look only at credible challengers like Sean and Aimee Allison? Or should folks like Pat McCullough, who lost by a very large margin, be considered in the calculus.

For that matter, do Allison’s numbers support what you surmised from Sean’s? That’s the easiest comparison to add to this.

]]> By: dto510 http://futureoaklandblog.com/2010/03/the-grassroots-case-for-increased-campaign-finance-limits/#comment-1245 dto510 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:57:57 +0000 http://futureoaklandblog.com/?p=671#comment-1245 Well, like I said, Dan Purnell's report is flawed and makes it difficult to figure out the real numbers. This blog is specifically about grassroots challengers to incumbent Councilmembers. The at-large race in 2008 was open, and neither Kerry Hamill nor Rebecca Kaplan were grassroots candidates, since they both held elected office. The point is not that campaign finance limits are always anti-democratic, but they help create the untouchable incumbency we see here in Oakland. Well, like I said, Dan Purnell’s report is flawed and makes it difficult to figure out the real numbers. This blog is specifically about grassroots challengers to incumbent Councilmembers. The at-large race in 2008 was open, and neither Kerry Hamill nor Rebecca Kaplan were grassroots candidates, since they both held elected office. The point is not that campaign finance limits are always anti-democratic, but they help create the untouchable incumbency we see here in Oakland.

]]> By: Max Allstadt http://futureoaklandblog.com/2010/03/the-grassroots-case-for-increased-campaign-finance-limits/#comment-1244 Max Allstadt Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:22:41 +0000 http://futureoaklandblog.com/?p=671#comment-1244 DTO, Are there numbers for any other challenger campaigns which tell the same story as those from Sean vs. Nancy? For that matter, do the donations tell different stories for city-wide elections than for districts? And what about open seats? I just got an email from somebody who pointed out that the numbers for both the primary and the run-off in the at-large campaign showed Kerry Hammil racking up more than double the number of max-out donors that Rebecca Kaplan got. This is a tricky one. I think it deserves more data and less conjecture. Unfortunately, the unrestricted money is very hard to quantify. Is an attack mailer on one candidate in a primary or an IRV election automatically considered to be created by money loyal to the victim's nearest rival? All sorts of unanswered questions... DTO,

Are there numbers for any other challenger campaigns which tell the same story as those from Sean vs. Nancy?

For that matter, do the donations tell different stories for city-wide elections than for districts?

And what about open seats? I just got an email from somebody who pointed out that the numbers for both the primary and the run-off in the at-large campaign showed Kerry Hammil racking up more than double the number of max-out donors that Rebecca Kaplan got.

This is a tricky one. I think it deserves more data and less conjecture. Unfortunately, the unrestricted money is very hard to quantify. Is an attack mailer on one candidate in a primary or an IRV election automatically considered to be created by money loyal to the victim’s nearest rival? All sorts of unanswered questions…

]]>