Ethics Reform in Tallahassee, Rejection of Election Overspending by Big Contra Costa Employer
Two big local ethics/election stories come from Contra
Costa, CA and Tallahassee, FL.<br>
<br>
<b>Ethics Reform Package Features a Different Sort of Public
Campaign Financing Program</b><br>
According to <a href="http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/04/voters-decide…; target="”_blank”">an
article this morning on the Tallahassee <i>Democrat</i>
website</a>, by a 2-1 margin Tallahassee voters approved a
charter amendment that will (1) create a seven-member ethics
board with the power to investigate ethics complaints and levy
civil penalties, (2) lower the campaign contribution limit </span></span>
from $1,000 to $250, and (3) institute one of the few local public
campaign financing programs. (I was consulted
about the amendment, and made recommendations for improving it.)<br>
<br>
The public campaign financing program is the most unusual part of
this ethics reform package. The brain child of Lawrence Lessig, a
Harvard law professor and founder of United Republic and
Rootstrikers, it provides up to a $25 rebate to Tallahassee citizens
who make campaign contributions. The goal is to encourage small
contributions which, in conjunction with a low contribution limit,
will end any appearance of impropriety with respect to contributions,
while allowing candidates to raise sufficient small contributions to
get their message out. <br>
<br>
There are very few local public campaign financing programs. The two
major ones, in New York City and Los Angeles, provide matching funds
to candidates, which turn small contributions into much larger ones
(I administered a public campaign financing program in New Haven,
which provides both matching funds and small grants). The
Tallahassee program tries to take the opposite approach. Rather than
making small contributions larger, it tries to nudge people into
making small contributions by rebating up to $25 of the
contributions they give. Since candidates do not get public funds,
there is less disclosure and administration required than in other
such programs.<br>
<br>
The result will be an interesting local tryout for a program Lessig
would like to be instituted at the federal level.<br>
<br>
<b>Another Huge Independent Expender Is Rejected by Local Voters</b><br>
Contra Costa's largest employer, Chevron, spent $3 million trying to
get into office a group of candidates sympathetic to its oil
refinery in town (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/how-huge-corporations-political-spend…
blog post</a>). According to <a href="///C:/city/blog/ontracostatimes.com/contra-costa-times/ci_26866574/butt-rogers-lead-early-numbers-richmond-mayor-council" target="”_blank”">an
article on the Contra Costa <i>Times</i> website this morning</a>,
Chevron's disproportionate independent spending led voters to select
progressives who are critical of the refinery. <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/how-huge-corporations-political-spend…; target="”_blank”">As in Coralville, IA</a>
(where the spending came from the Koch brothers), disproportionate
spending by outsiders or, here, a big company have not gone over well in the
community.<br>
<br>
According to the article, the refinery was not the principal issue
in the election. The
biggest issues were the city's budget deficit, a proposal to
help underwater homeowners out of their mortgages by using the
city's power of eminent domain, and "the infamously unruly City
Council meetings." So it's hard to know how big a role the Chevron expenditures had. But they certainly didn't get them what they wanted.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---