Local Campaign Finance Reform
Case Studies, Innovative and Model Legislation
Foreword
The
National Civic League has a long and distinguished history of promoting innovative
political reform beginning with our formation by Teddy Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis,
and other progressives at the end of the last century. The courageous community
leaders who founded the National Civic League developed a model city charter
which revolutionized municipal and county government and cleaned up the rampant
graft and corruption that had infected major cities.
Throughout
its history, the National Civic League has promoted other innovative political
reforms, including proportional representation, unicameral state legislatures,
and initiative and referendum. More recently, the National Civic League has
been involved in voting rights and redistricting issues and was one of the
early proponents of "civic journalism". Now, one hundred years after
the last Progressive Movement began, the cynicism and disillusionment with
the modern political process calls for a new spirit of activism and a new
wave of political reform.
This
study of local campaign finance reform, undertaken by the New Politics Program
of the National Civic League with funding from the Ford Foundation, was in
some ways a leap of faith. State and national reformers have known for some
time of high-profile examples of local campaign finance reform efforts. Tucson,
Seattle, and New York are examples of cities that have explored innovative
approaches to campaign finance reform at the local level. But, beyond the
few well-known cases, no one had any idea of the scope and breadth of reform
activity at the local level.
The
National Civic League has always believed that all major social and political
reform movements begin at the grassroots level, build momentum, and are eventually
codified by the national government. We suspected that there was local activity
on campaign financing that was being overlooked by both the national media
and the national reform organizations. Our faith in the health and vitality
of local, citizen democracy was justified.
This
report documents seventy-five local governments that have enacted limits on
campaign contributions, campaign spending, or both. Over half of those reforms
have been enacted since 1990 and it is likely that there are more reforms
out there yet to be discovered.
National
campaign finance reform has been repeatedly ignored, filibustered, and killed
in Congress over the last decade. At the same time, local elected officials
and community leaders are experimenting with innovative ways to reduce the
influence of money in local politics and re-engage citizens in elections.
This local activism and innovation should give us all hope for the future
of reform in America.
Bill
Bradley, Past Chairman
National
Civic League
*We thank the Ford Foundation for their support that made this publication
possible. The opinions in this report are those of NCL solely and do not necessarily
reflect those of the Ford Foundation.
Jump
to:
Low Contribution Limits
Model- Fort Collins, CO
Public Financing Model- Tucson,
AZ
Conflict of Interest
Model- Westminster, CO
Time Limits Model- Little
Rock, AR
Publishing Candidate Compliance-
Richland, WA
Small City Model- Alta, UT
Voluntary Reform Model-
Chapel Hill, NC
Low
Contribution Limits Model
Fort
Collins, Colorado
A very
basic law that limits contributions, coupled with disclosure, is the most
popular reform model at the local level. The amount of the contribution limit
varies a great deal depending on the size of the city and the problem that
reform attempts to address. The trend in recent years has been toward the
adoption of low contribution limits at the state and local level. Several
recent court decisions have held that contribution limits of $100 are so low
that they unconstitutionally infringe on the rights of citizens to participate
in the political process and infringe on the candidate's right to effectively
communicate with voters. Ins spite of those decisions, there are still almost
a dozen cities that have set their contribution limits at $100 or lower.
At $50,
the City of Ft. Collins, Colorado, with a population of approximately 100,000,
has the lowest contribution limits in the country. The Ft. Collins City Council
originally enacted a $100 contribution limit for city council and mayoral
races in 1981. However, in 1986, the council decided to lower the limit to
$50 in order to further combat the appearance of corruption in the local political
process.
Former
mayor Kelly Ohlson wrote the contribution limit law back in the mid 1980's,
out of concern that candidates were receiving a few very sizable campaign
contributions, which constituted a large percentage of their campaign budget.
Because of this, Fort Collins' campaign finance law is designed to prevent
a small group of contributors from exerting a large amount of influence over
the election process, while at the same time keeping election costs down.
It took
the reformers two years to gain a majority on council that would support the
reform initiative, but once it passed in 1986, big dollar contributors did
not have as direct an effect on the election process as it had had before.
The
City Clerk has not received any complaints about the law, or reports of candidates
breaking the limits and no candidate or citizen in Ft. Collins has challenged
their $50 limit.
CONTACTS
Rita Harris, Deputy City Clerk
300 Laporte Avenue/P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
(970) 221-6515
Fort
Collins, CO
City
Ordinance Limits
(a)
No person may make contributions or contributions in kind in excess of fifty
dollars ($50) to any candidate or any authorized political committee of
such candidate. This limitation shall apply to all contributions in kind,
whether made directly to a candidate or authorized political committee or
indirectly via earmarked gifts passed through an intermediary, except that
this limitation shall not apply to:
(1)
Contributions or contributions in kind made by a candidate to his or her
own political committee;
(2)
Independent expenditures made by any person without the cooperation or
authorization of, or consultation with, the candidate, an authorized political
committee of the candidate or an agent of the candidate, and which are
not made in concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, the candidate,
an authorized political committee of the candidate or an agent of the
candidate;
(3)
Monetary loans that are: (a) personally guaranteed in writing by the candidate,
the candidate's immediate family or a business entity in which the candidate
owns at least five (5) percent; or (b) secured by real or personal property
owned by the candidate, the candidate's immediate family or a business
entity in which the candidate owns at least five (5) percent; or
(4)
The value of volunteer services provided without compensation by individuals
volunteering their time on behalf of a candidate or a political committee.
Public
Financing Model
Tucson,
AZ
The
voters of Tucson, Arizona adopted one of the earliest and most comprehensive
local campaign finance reform measures in 1985.
Tucson
is a city of 520,000 people. It has six election wards and a mayor elected
at-large. Council members and the mayor serve four-year terms with three council
members elected every two years.
Under
threat of a citizen initiative in the early 1980's, council crafted their
own charter amendment, which was referred to the ballot and adopted with 52%
of the vote. Tucson's amendment drew heavily from the pioneering local reform
law that had been adopted by the City of Seattle in 1979.
Tucson's
law allows candidates to sign a campaign contract accepting overall campaign
spending limits in return for public financing. Candidates who sign the contract
also agree to limit their person contribution to their campaign to 3% of the
spending limit. The spending limit was originally set at 20¢ per registered
voter for council races and 40¢ per registered voter in mayoral races. Those
amounts have risen slightly pursuant to an inflation factor written into the
charter amendment.
In order
to qualify for public funding, mayoral candidates must collect 300 contributions
of $10 or more in order to qualify for matching funds and council candidates
must collect such 200 contributions. The public funding primarily comes from
the city's general fund, but the city also attempts to raise money for the
program by soliciting contributions through its monthly water billing statements.
A 1991 amendment required all leftover campaign funds to be returned to the
city election fund up to the amount that repays all public funds. Previously,
the law had only required the return of half of the public funds.
The
Tucson charter amendment also imposed mandatory contribution limits on candidates.
Individuals could give $500 to a candidate and PACs could give $1,000. However,
a statewide ballot initiative adopted in 1986 limits contributions from individuals
to $300, $300 from most PACs, and $1,510 from "qualifying" PACs.
State law supercedes the local charter.
Candidates
who participate in the public financing program are audited by an independent
auditor selected by the city clerk at the time that they first request public
funds in order to verify eligibility. Candidate records are also audited following
the election and special audits may also be performed.
A candidate
or person who knowingly or intentionally refuses or fails to comply with provisions
of the Charter is guilty of a misdemeanor. If the violation is by a candidate,
the candidate's name shall not be placed on the ballot. Any candidate who
fails to comply with the provisions of the Charter or the conditions of a
properly signed campaign contract will be ineligible to receive further public
matching funds until the candidate is once again in compliance.
Tucson's
reform has now been through six election cycles and seems to have gained wide
acceptance from candidates and the public. Almost every candidate now participates
in the program by signing the contract and accepting the campaign spending
limits.
The
city clerk and a leading proponent of the original charter amendment both
feel that the law is working well. They believe that campaign finance reform
in Tucson has reduced the candidates' reliance on TV advertising and created
a more grassroots campaign culture. However, there is some concern about the
emergence of independent expenditures and some early discussion about changes
to the law that would provide public funds to offset independent expenditures.
Other
public financing models include Long Beach and Los Angeles in California and
New York City. Seattle's public financing was repealed by a statewide ballot
initiative in 1992.
Contacts:
Kathleen Detrick, City Clerk
255 W. Alameda, P.O. Box 27210
Tucson, AZ 85726-7210
(602) 791-4213
Tucson,
Arizona
City
Charter
CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS
Contributions
Limited
A.
Effective with election for City offices in 1987, no person shall make a
contribution of more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) to any candidate
for Mayor or City Council in any campaign period. A campaign committee may
contribute up to One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) to any candidate for Mayor
or City Council, in the name of such group; provided further that no individual
member of such committee shall contribute more than Five Hundred Dollars
($500.00) toward the contribution, nor an aggregate amount of more than
Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) to any candidate whether through a committee
contribution or a personal contribution.
B.
No candidate for Mayor or City Council shall accept or receive a campaign
contribution of more that Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) from any person
or more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) from any campaign committee
during any campaign period.
1.
Contributions include monies, loans, debts incurred, property-in-kind,
or things having a monetary value incurred or received by a candidate
or his agent or other person on behalf of the candidate for use in advocating
or influencing the election of the candidate.
2.
The limitations imposed by this subchapter shall not apply to contributions
by a candidate's own resources to the candidate's own campaign.
3.
The limitations imposed by this subchapter shall not apply to independent
expenditures. Independent or campaign committee expenditure shall mean
an expenditure by a person for a communication expressly advocating the
support of or opposition to a clearly identified candidate which is not
made with the cooperation or with the prior consent of, a candidate or
his agent or a controlled committee of a candidate.
4.
The limitations imposed by this section shall not apply to the value of
in-kind labor.
VOLUNTARY
EXPENDITURE LIMITATION
Campaign
Contract.
A.
Effective with elections for City offices in 1987, a candidate for Mayor
or City Council may sign a contract with the City agreeing to abide by limitations
on candidate's contributions, limitations on campaign expenditures, and
limitations on the use of all contributions as specified in the City Charter
in exchange for public matching funds.
B.
The campaign contract must be signed by the individual candidate either
within thirty days after the individual becomes a candidate or at the time
of filing for said office, whichever is earlier.
Candidates'
Contribution Limitations.
A Candidate
who signs a campaign contract shall make no contributions to their own campaign
or campaign committee which in the aggregate exceeds three percent (3%) of
the applicable expenditure limit in any campaign period.
Expenditure
Limitations.
A.
A candidate who signs a campaign contract in accordance with Sec. 1 of the
Subchapter shall not, during the campaign period, make expenditures exceeding
the aggregate amount of forty cents ($0.40) per city of Tucson registered
voter for the Office of Mayor or twenty cents ($0.20) per City of Tucson
registered voter for the office of City Council.
B.
Independent expenditures, as defined by this Chapter shall not be included
in the computation of a candidate's expenditures.
C.
The expenditure amounts per City of Tucson registered voter shall be adjusted
by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index as reported by the
U.S. Department of Commerce or its successor agency.
D.
No more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the eligible expenditure limitation
shall be spent through the day of the primary election.
Eligibility
for Public Matching Funds.
A.
To be eligible to receive public matching funds, a candidate for Mayor or
City Council must meet the requirements of the City Charter; and during
the campaign period:
1.
For the Office of Mayor receive three hundred (300) contributions of Ten
Dollars ($10.00) or more;
2.
For the Office of City Council receive two hundred (200) contributions
of Ten Dollars ($10.00) or more;
B.
For purposes of establishing eligibility under this section, only those
contributions received from residents of the City of Tucson shall be counted
toward the requirement.
C.
Candidates must submit evidence of meeting the eligibility requirements
of this section to the Office of the Campaign Finance Administrator for
verification. Upon verification of eligibility, a candidate who has signed
a campaign contract shall be eligible to receive public matching funds;
provided that no such funds shall be disbursed to any qualified candidate
prior to January 1 of the year in which the candidate election is to be
held and, provided further, that any candidate who receives public matching
funds and later fails to file for public office or withdraws as a candidate
after filing shall, no later than 10 days following such event, return to
the election campaign account an amount equal to the public funds disbursed
to that candidate.
Public
Matching Funds.
A.
A candidate who has met the eligibility requirements for public matching
funds and who has signed a campaign contract shall be entitled to receive
One Dollar ($1.00) in public matching funds for each dollar received during
the campaign period from any individual contribution. Neither loans nor
the transfers of anything of value other than money to the candidate or
the candidate's campaign committee shall be matched with public funds.
B.
If following the election wherein the candidate is elected or defeated,
the candidate has unexpended campaign funds, one-half of such surplus shall
be returned to the election campaign account within ten days of certification
of the election.
C.
A candidate who has signed a campaign contract may void the contract within
fifteen days after the close of filing, provided, an opponent of that candidate
does not enter into a campaign contract pursuant to this subchapter; and
provided further, that the candidate returns all public funds received to
the election campaign account no later than 10 days following such event.
Establishment
of an Election Campaign Account.
The
Mayor and Council shall establish an election campaign account in the general
fund into which shall be deposited such sums as may be appropriated from
time to time in the annual budget, gifts and donations made to the City
for the support of public election campaign financing, and such sums as
may otherwise be appropriated to said account. Money in said account shall
be expended from time to time for the purpose of assisting the financing
of public election campaigns.
Permitted
Use of Public Matching Funds.
A.
Public matching funds may be expended only for the receiving candidate's
direct campaign purposes such as, but not limited to, purchasing campaign
literature or media space or time, mailings, renting campaign headquarters,
or paying for campaign headquarter telephones. A candidate who signs a campaign
contract may use neither contributions nor public matching funds for indirect
campaign purposes such as, but not limited to, providing a candidate's personal
support, or for donation to another's campaign. Permissibility of an expenditure
of public matching funds shall be determined by the Campaign Finance Administrator.
B.
Goods with a value in excess of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) any part of
which have been purchased with public matching funds and having a useful
life extending beyond the end of the campaign period shall revert to the
City.
Campaign
Finance Administrator - - duties thereof.
A.
The City Clerk or other officer appointed by the Mayor and Council shall
be the Campaign Finance Administrator. The office of the Campaign Finance
Administrator shall not be included in the classified Civil Service.
B.
The Campaign Finance Administrator shall be responsible for the management
of said office, shall administer the provisions of the subchapter and is
authorized to adopt, promulgate, amend and rescind suitable administrative
rules and regulations to carry out the policies and purposes of this subchapter.
Prior to becoming effective, such rules and regulations shall be approved
by the Mayor and Council.
Conflict
of Interest Model
Westminster,
CO
The
city of Westminster, Colorado, population 74,623, amended its charter in 1996
to require that city councilors abstain from debating or voting on any issues
that directly affect contributor to their campaign who gave more than $100.
Two councilors were concerned about issues of growth and development and felt
that developers were exercising too much influence over city council decisions.
They felt it presented a conflict of interest every time a big campaign contributor
appeared before city council seeking city action favorable to their financial
interests.
Westminster
already had a conflict of interest provision in their city charter that prohibited
the granting of city contracts to city employees, elected officials, or their
families. It was the idea of the two reform-minded councilors to add a broader,
traditional conflict of interest provision for city councilors that would
address gifts, employment, and other pecuniary benefits that typically raise
conflict of interest questions. However, they also added campaign contributions
to the list of pecuniary benefits that would require abstention.
In the
late fall of 1996, the Westminster City Council was wrestling with several
other issues for the November ballot. As time drew short to certify the official
ballot, council found itself in a position where it needed a 6 to 1 or unanimous
vote in order to call an emergency session and certify the ballot. The two
reformers saw their opportunity and refused to vote in favor of the emergency
session unless their reform proposal was also included on the ballot. As a
result, Westminster's reform was adopted by the city's voters with over 70%
of the vote.
Westminter's
charter now specifies that the acceptance by a councilor or candidate for
council of a campaign contribution in excess of $100 "shall create a
conflict of interest with regard to that Councilor's vote on any issue or
matter coming before the Council involving a benefit to the contributing person.
. .". Any councilor may challenge the existence of a conflict with another
councilor at any time before the vote is taken. A "knowing" violation
is misconduct in office, which can be grounds for removal from office.
One
of the major legal and policy objections to Westminster's reform was the affect
it would have on future council votes based on contributions to sitting councilors
given in earlier years. In effect, the new law created a conflict of interest
and required abstention from debate and voting on issues based on contributions
that were given prior to passage of the amendment. Outside legal opinions
also resolved that issue in favor of the constitutionality of the reform.
Big
contributors in the 1997 council elections quickly recognized the potential
impact of the reform on pending or future council business in which they might
have an interest. They modified their behavior accordingly and contributions
greater than $100 dropped off dramatically in the 1997 elections, particularly
from development interests.
The
two councilors who proposed the charter amendment believe that it is working
well and will have a positive affect on city government. Other councilors
still believe that it is an unnecessary inconvenience at best and unconstitutional
at worst. The amendment has not been challenged in court.
Several
cities in California use a conflict of interest approach to campaign contributors,
the most prominent being Oakland and San Francisco. However, those cities
only prohibit city contractors from making campaign contributions during contract
negotiations. On the other hand, Chula Vista, Santa Ana, Modesto, and Costa
Mesa, California all require abstention if a city councilor has received a
large (the amounts vary) campaign contribution from the person or entity who
stands to benefit from the vote.
Contacts:
Councilor Glenn Scott 303-466-5720); E-mail: glenn@denver.net
Michele Kelley, City Clerk or
Martin McCullough, City Attorney (303) 430-2400
Westminster,
Colorado
City
Charter
Conflicts
Based on Prior Pecuniary Benefits.
(a)
The acceptance or receipt by any Councilor or member of that Councilor's
immediate family, or an organization formed to support the candidacy of
that Councillor, of any thing of value in excess of one-hundred dollars
($100) from any person, organization, or agent of such person or organization,
shall create a conflict of interest with regard to that Councillor's vote
on any issue or matter coming before the Council involving a benefit to
the contributing person, organization, or agent, unless such interests are
merely incidental to an issue or question involving the common public good.
(i)
Should a conflict of interest arise for any Councillor under this subsection
(a), the Councillor shall state the grounds for the conflict of interest
on the record immediately prior to Council's vote, withdraw from debate
on the issue, and abstain from voting on the matter, notwithstanding any
duty to vote provided for elsewhere in this Charter.
(ii)
In the event a quorum cannot be obtained because of any issue or matter
to be acted on by Council because of abstentions pursuant to subsection
(i) above, any abstaining Councillor or Councilors may vote as long as
the abstaining Councillor or Councilors has disclosed the nature of the
conflicting interest, including the amount of financial interest, the
purpose and duration of any employment provided or services rendered and
compensation therefore, and such other information as may be necessary
to describe the interest.
(iii)
Any Councillor may challenge the existence of a conflict of interest of
interest pursuant to this subsection (a) prior to Council's vote, but
not thereafter. In the event such challenge is raised, the challenge shall
be decided by a majority vote of the remaining members of Council with
no alleged conflict, and such determination shall be deemed to be final
and conclusive.
(b)
For purposes of this Section, the following terms shall be defined as:
(i)
"Thing of value" means money, employment, goods, services, or
objects with any intrinsic value, including but not limited to, campaign
contributions, loans, offsets to expenditures, contributions in kind,
and independent expenditures by any person or organization on behalf of
the candidacy of a Councillor, provided that such thing of value was received
during the Councillor's current term of office or anytime within six (6)
months prior to the commencement of the Councillor's current term of office.
(ii)
"Immediate family" means the spouse, children, and the spouse
of any child of any Councillor or candidate for Councillor.
(iii)
"Councillor" includes the Mayor.
Time
Limits Model
Little
Rock, AR
Several
local jurisdictions have restricted the time in which a candidate can solicit
and/or receive contributions. Some municipalities restrict fundraising during
"off years," others prohibit contributions for a limited time period
immediately prior to an election, and still others have forbidden fundraising
immediately following their local elections.
In February
of 1997 the Board of Directors (City Council members) in Little Rock, Arkansas
(population 176,000) passed an ordinance limiting the time in which local
candidates can collect political contributions. Under the law, candidates
in Little Rock can begin fundraising on June 1st of an election year and must
stop fundraising by December 1st. After the election, candidates must return
any remaining campaign funds to contributors or give those funds to a non-profit
organization of their choice.
The
law was prompted by two members of the Board who each received $1,000 campaign
contributions in 1994, a full two years before the elections were to be held.
The contributions came from some local developers. A couple of weeks after
the contributions were made the same developers were before the Board of Directors
concerning their business which produced a major conflict of interest.
The
Little Rock ordinance, which places time limits on political fundraising,
was passed after Arkansas voters imposed a $100 contribution limit for local
candidates as a part of a statewide ballot initiative in 1996. Incidentally,
the ballot initiative received more of the vote than did Bill Clinton and
Al Gore. Little Rock took advantage of the state law that allows local governments
to set up stricter laws. A federal court struck down the initiative's campaign
contribution limits, but the time frames were left unchallenged and therefore
untouched.
The
1998 election cycle is the first set of elections in which the ordinance has
been in effect and all of the candidates have adhered to it. No candidate
accepted a contribution prior to June 1st and none have threatened
to challenge the law in court. The ordinance will be watched closely by reform
advocates to see how well this approach works and to find out if it holds
up to constitutional scrutiny if and when it is challenged.
Fifteen
other cities have also imposed time restrictions on political fundraising.
CONTACTS
Mr.Thomas M. Carpenter, City Attorney
500 West Markham, Suite 3000
Little Rock, AR 72201-1400
(501) 371-4527
Mitch
Klien, Director
ACORN
2101 South Main Street
Little Rock, AR 72206
(501) 376-7151
Little
Rock, Arkansas
City
Ordinance
This
ordinance shall apply to all candidates for any elected city office including,
but not limited to, the position of Mayor, member of the Board of Directors,
or municipal judge.
The
following provisions shall apply to campaigns for municipal office:
(a)
Contributions to regular election campaigns for municipal office shall be
limited to the period beginning June 1 immediately before the election and
ending December 1 immediately after the election.
(b)
Contributions to special election campaigns for municipal office shall be
limited to the period of time:
(i)
immediately following the call of the special election until the date
of its special election; and
(ii)
thirty days (30) after the date of the special election, provided that
no contribution shall be accepted from any person with an interest in
business pending before the elected municipal official.
Publishing
Candidate Compliance
Richland,
WA
Several
local governments including Alta, Utah, Aspen and Crested Butte, Colorado,
Austin, Texas, Concord and Indio, California, and Richland, Washington use
the force of public pressure by ordained measures to keep candidate spending
down. In most of these scenarios local ordinances require the city clerk,
or other public entity, to publish a series of advertisements in local papers
which identify the candidate or candidates who have exceeded a proscribed
voluntary spending limit, and recognize those who have stayed within the limit.
Prompted
by a candidate for city council who, in 1991, spent roughly twice the amount
that was traditionally spent on a council race, the Richland City Council
determined that they didn't want money to control city politics and they did
something about it.
In 1993
the city of Richland Washington passed their own publication provision in
an attempt to rein in campaign spending. The ordinance provides for the City
Council to set a voluntary "reasonable maximum expenditure" limit
for primary and general city council races and requires the city clerk to
monitor candidates' expenditures through campaign financial reports. Richland's
ordinance requires the clerk to publish a display advertisement in a local
paper identifying the candidate or candidates who have exceeded the limit,
recognizing those who have stayed within the limit, and listing the total
campaign spending for all candidates. The Richland ordinance requires the
placement of an ad once a week from the time the candidate exceeds the limit
through the election.
Alta,
Utah and Crested Butte, Colorado have both recently adopted similar ordinances
that include publication provisions.
Richland's
ordinance is another attempt to use publicity and the popularity of campaign
contribution and spending limits to reform campaign financing. But, unlike
the Chapel Hill voluntary model, Richland has codified its limits and is willing
to use public funds and the authority of the city to inform its citizens about
the candidates' compliance.
Richland,
Washington
City
Ordinance
Monitoring
of Campaign Expenditures. The Richland City clerk shall be responsible
for monitoring expenditures by candidates and shall follow the procedure below:
(1)
All candidates for the Richland city council shall file copies of their
financial reports with the Richland city clerk at the same time they file
them with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission and the Benton
County Auditor.
(2)
The city clerk shall keep a running tally of each candidate's campaign expenditures,
based on the campaign financial reports.
(3)
When one or more candidates exceed the recommended limits, as applicable,
the city clerk shall prepare an announcement of that fact as described in
Section 1.01.070 that includes the name(s) and amount(s) spent on the campaign
by any and all candidates whose campaign spending has exceeded the amount
specified in this ordinance.
(4)
Once a candidate has exceeded the limit, the city clerk shall review all
candidates' to-date expenditures and reissue the announcement with applicable
additions and/or changes weekly. (Ord. 2-93).
Publication.
Once a candidate exceeds the recommended limits, the city clerk shall publish
advertisement in a local newspaper weekly until the city council campaign
has ended. This notice shall include the following information:
(1)
A statement that certain candidates for city council have spent beyond the
limits recommended by city ordinance.
(2)
A list of all positions and respective candidates together with their respective
to-date expenditures. The names of those candidates who have exceeded the
recommended limits shall be highlighted with an asterisk or other symbol
and an appropriate footnote shall provide the meaning of the symbol.
(3)
A statement of the city council policy. If a candidate exceeds the established
limit during a primary and does not qualify for the general election, his/her
name and expenses need not be placed in the published notice thereafter
except the post election notice described herein. If any candidate has exceeded
the established limits during the campaign, the city clerk shall prepare
a final updated notice similar to the others and issue it after the date
on which the candidates must file their final financial reports with the
public disclosure commission. The city clerk shall confirm the final amounts
with the public disclosure commission prior to publication of the final
notice to the public.
Small
City Model
Alta,
UT (population 397)
Even
in small cities and towns, where campaign spending and contributions are relatively
modest, citizens and elected officials are wrestling with issues of campaign
financing. Citizens seem especially intolerant of relative extravagant campaign
spending in places where they expect grassroots campaigning from their local
politicians.
Mayor
Bill Levitt and other concerned citizens bore witness to the expensive U.S.
Senate race in Utah in 1996 and the high costs of running campaigns for city
council in Salt Lake City. The people of Alta, aware of their vulnerability
to large developers, worked to avoid the corruptive influences of big dollar
campaigns. They decided to be proactive about improving their campaign finance
laws in an effort to help control growth and protect their environment.
In January
of 1997, the small town of Alta, Utah, which is better know for it's skiing
than passing innovative reform measures, created local campaign finance laws
for their town. The law requires disclosure of all cash contributions over
$25, all expenditures and all in-kind contributions. The law establishes voluntary
contribution limits of $200 per person, voluntary spending limits of $500
for council seats and $1,000 for the Mayor's office. Each candidate must state
whether they are going to voluntarily abide by these limits. The Town Clerk
is then required to make a public announcement listing those candidates who
have voluntarily agreed to abide by the limits and those who have not.
The
law created by Levitt and the council was based in large measure on the idea
that an informed public was critical to electing a sound city government.
Letting the public know about how candidates are spending their money and
who gives to their campaigns is an enormous first step. Once the public knows
about the financial backing of each candidate, and whether a candidate is
abiding by the voluntary limits, then the decision is left to the voters.
In the 1997 campaign, all candidates signed spending pledge and abided by
the limits.
All
candidates in the 1997 election cycle signed the voluntary campaign commitment.
However, Alta is such a small town, it seems to have come as no surprise.
Alta doesn't have political campaigns in the same sense that larger cities
do. Rarely are there any campaign signs in neighbors' lawns or flyers mailed
out to town residents. But although money isn't currently a problem in Alta
campaigns, the towns' members still felt that they needed to address the issue.
Crested
Butte, Colorado (population 1,000) is another shining example of a very small
town that collectively decided to be proactive when it came to the issue of
campaign finance reform. Like Alta, it is a picturesque town known for outstanding
extreme skiing, and few would consider it to be at the forefront of a national,
progressive political movement.
Yet,
in November of 1997, the citizens of rested Butte voted overwhelmingly to
establish a system of voluntary spending limits for candidates running for
town offices. The City council of Crested Butte found the political will to
seek a solution, drafted the proposal, and placed it on the ballot. It passed
with 79% of the vote. Crested Butte's campaign finance reform establishes
a $200 voluntary spending limit for city council and mayoral candidates. Like
Alta, the town clerk is required to publish a list of candidate in the local
paper noting which candidates have, and which have not, agreed to the spending
limits. The town clerk is also required to publish the candidates' final campaign
report, due 11 days before the election.
CONTACTS
Alta
Bill
Levitt, Mayor
City
of Alta
P.O.
Box 8016
Alta,
UT 84092
(801)
742-3522
Crested
Butte
Jim
Starr, City Attorney
P.O.
Box 1167
Crested
Butte, CO 81224
(970)
349-5363
Alta,
Utah
City
Ordinance
WHEREAS,
the Town Council finds it in the public interest that the conduct of municipal
elections within the Town be regulated so the voters may determine who has
contributed to candidates and what candidates have spent on races; and
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
Section
1. Each candidate for elective office shall file a signed campaign financial
statement with the Town Clerk (a) seven days before the date of the general
election, reporting each contribution of more than $25 and all in-kind contributions
and each expenditure as of ten days before the date of the general election;
and (b) no later than 30 days after the date of the general election.
Section
2. The statement filed seven days before the general election shall include
a list of each contribution of more than $25 received by the candidate, all
in-kind contributions, and the name and address of each donor; an aggregate
total of all contributions of $25 or less and in-kind contributions received
by the candidate; and a list of each expenditure of campaign contributions
made during the campaign period, and the recipient of each expenditure.
Section
3. The statement filed 30 days after the general election shall include a
list of each contribution of more than $25 and in-kind contributions received
after the cutoff date for the statement filed seven days before the election,
and the name and address of each donor; an aggregate total of all contributions
of $25 or less and in-kind contributions received by the candidate after the
cutoff date for the statement filed seven days before the election; and a
list of all expenditures for political purposes made by the candidate after
the cutoff date for the statement filed seven days before the election, and
the recipient of each expenditure.
Section
4. Candidates for elective office who are eliminated at a primary election
shall file a signed campaign financial statement containing the information
required by this section no later than 30 days after the primary election.
Section
5. Any person who fails to comply with this section is guilty of an infraction.
Section
6. Candidates for elective office shall be given an opportunity to publicly
commit to spending and contribution limitations. At the time that a person
files for elective office he or she shall be provided with a form prepared
by the Town Clerk.
Section
7. Said from will inquire of the candidates whether the or she is voluntarily
willing to (a) limit total campaign spending to less than $500 for council
positions and $1,000 for the office of the Mayor; (b) limit donations from
any one donor to $200 or less; (c) refuse donations from corporations, developers,
political action committees (PACs), unions and other entities which face a
substantial likelihood of having matters under consideration by the Town during
the upcoming four years; and (d) agree to participate in at least one debate
sponsored by a neutral group prior to the election. Said from shall be returned
to the Town Clerk within two weeks of the final filing date for office. In
the event a candidate fails to return the form to the Town Clerk, said refusal
shall constitute a refusal to abide by the above voluntary conditions. A candidate
may also indicate that he or she shall agree to spend or accept less in contributions
than the amounts listed herein.
Section
8. With in three weeks from the final filing date for office, the Town Clerk
shall make public, by posting an announcement in three public place within
the Town and by delivering a press release to local media, those candidate
who have voluntarily agreed to abide by the conditions set forth in Section
7 and those who have not.
Voluntary
Reform Model
Chapel
Hill, N.C
Citizen
activists in Chapel Hill, North Carolina pioneered a voluntary campaign finance
reform program for local races in 1995. North Carolina does not have home
rule for municipalities, so Chapel Hill is unable to adopt its own campaign
contribution and spending limits for the city without special enabling legislation
from the state. Some years ago Chapel Hill requested and received special
state legislation that required the reporting of all campaign contributions
over $100 made to local candidates. However, there were no other regulations
of campaign contributions or spending in North Carolina at the local level.
A statewide
coalition of organizations called the North Carolina Alliance for Democracy
has been working for several years to adopt campaign finance reform at the
state level. The Orange County Green Party and Sierra Club are members of
the Alliance. The leadership of the Orange County chapters of the Sierra Club
and the Green Party decided to push local reform in Chapel Hill as an organizing
tool to involve and educate citizens on issues of campaign finance reform.
They believed that their local organizing would benefit the movement in North
Carolina for state and national reform. They were also concerned by a recent
increase in campaign spending, large contributions made by developers, and
the success of pro-development candidates in recent elections.
Guessing
that the state legislature would not enact special legislation allowing Chapel
Hill to pass its own local reform, the local activists decided to promote
a voluntary reform program. They developed a package of reforms that included
disclosure of all contributions, spending limits of $4,000 for council candidates
and $7,000 for mayoral candidates, and contribution limits of $100. The campaign
spending limits were based on the average spending for the 1993 winners.
The
citizens then took their proposal to every candidate and asked for a pledge
to abide by the terms of the reform. The success of the program depended on
aggressive promotion of the program and public pressure to compel candidates
to sign the pledge and abide by its terms.
There
are eight city council members and a mayor. Council elections are held every
two years with half of the council elected at each election to serve four-year
terms. All council candidates run at-large and the top four vote getters are
elected to office.
Four
of the nine candidates for city council and one of the two candidates for
mayor accepted the pledge in 1995. Only one of the pledging challengers was
elected. Three of the top spenders in the council race won, although the one
challenger who accepted the pledge was fifth in spending, but second in votes.
The
Greens and Sierra Club ran the program again in 1997 and were joined by a
neighborhood association. Development issues once again dominated the elections
and the local media provided good coverage of candidate contribution and spending
information. Whether or not a candidate pledged to disclose all contributions
became an important issue. Four of the seven council candidates accepted the
pledge in 1997. Two of those candidates, one incumbent and one challenger,
were elected to council.
Proponents
of the Chapel Hill effort felt that it was very successful in raising the
issue of campaign finance reform in local elections. Full disclosure of campaign
contributions became a big issue in the elections and the local media began
to cover stories about campaign contributors and overall campaign spending.
The proponents also felt that the program was a successful organizing tool
for involving and educating citizens about campaign finance reform and its
importance in elections. Chapel Hill now has a group of involved informed
citizens that can be tapped to promote state and even national reform.
In 1997,
local activists in Boulder, Colorado adopted the Chapel Hill model for their
local elections with similar results. Nine of twenty candidates in the Boulder
council elections signed a pledge to limit campaign spending to $11,000 and
to accept no contributions in excess of $100. The reformers in Boulder used
their voluntary program to lay the groundwork for future legislation, either
through the city council or by ballot initiative.
Contacts:
Councilor
Kevin Foy
Chapel
Hill Town Hall
306
North Columbia Street
Chapel
Hill, NC 27516
(919)
968-2743
Councilor Joyce Brown
Chapel
Hill Town Hall
306
North Columbia Street
Chapel
Hill, NC 27516
(919)
929-7781
joycebrown@mindspring.com
« Back
|