SR-102307-3ACity Council Meeting: October 23, 2007
Agenda Item: 3-A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Maria M. Stewart, City Clerk
Subject: Public Financing of Campaigns
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council review the information contained in this report and provide
direction to staff.
Executive Summary
Rt the June 1Q 2007, City Council meeting, Council directed staff to continue to work on an
election campaign public financing system, including estimates of the cost and possible
funding sources; to research existing software that provides for creating a database to
access and query election campaign statement information; review the enforcement
challenges and to investigate ways to enable effective enforcement of our existing
contribution limits and perhaps recommend changes if appropriate.
This report provides information on programs for public financing of electoral campaigns.
Information on campaign statement software has been provided to Council via an information
report. Infomtation on enforcement challenges and effective enforcement of existing laws will
be addressed in a separate report by the City Attorney.
Background
On March 13, 2007, in response to Council direction, staff presented a staff report on existing
laws on candidate campaign contributions and expenditures, and on independent
expenditures; on public financing of election campaigns programs implemented in other cities
and some states; and, on options for a local public financing program structure.
After considering the information received above, Council directed staff to hold a community
workshop to receive public input on ways to improve the electoral process. Staff presented a
report to Council on June 19, 2007, on the results of the community workshop at which time
Council gave the direction that is discussed in this report.
Discussion
Existing Programs in 0#her Cities and Some States
On March 13, 2007, staff reported that the cities of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Portland,
Oregon, and the states of Arizona, Maine and Vermont have full financing programs in place.
At the time, the City of Los Angeles had a matching funds only program but was in the
process of reviewing and receiving public input fora proposed full public financing program in
the near future. Currently, the City Council of Los Angeles is still waiting for feedback from
their neighborhood councils regarding hovV a full public financing program should be
structured, i.e., how much the qualifying contributions should be, the amount of total public
funding that can be provided, etc. L.A. City staff expects to return to Council with the
feedback in December of this year or in January 2008.
In addition, as reported in a July 2003 report by The Center for Governmen#a/ Studies, the
following cities had some type of public financing program {primarily matching funds, as
opposed to full public financing programs): Austin, Texas; Boulder, Colorado; Cary, North
Carolina; Miami-Dade County, Florida; New York City; Suffolk County, New York; Tucson,
Arizona; and, Oakland, San Francisco, Long Beach and Los Angeles in California. The
populations of these cities range approximately from 400,000 in Oakland to 8,008,000 in New
York City. Boulder's population is at 94,673 and "Cary, North Carolina at 94,536. These two
2
cities are the most comparable in popula#ion to the City of Santa Monica. Below is a
summary of these two cities' existing matchi'ng~ funds onAy programs:
Boulder, Colorado:
- Matching funds: $1 public funds for $1 contribution
- Maximum public funds: no more than 50% spending limit {$6,437 in 2007 -spending
limit is $12,873.00)
- Qualifying contributions: 10°~ of spending limit {$1,287}
- Funding for program from general funds
- Spending limit is $0.15 per registered voter {$10,532)
- $100 contribution limit per election
Staff from the City of Boulder advises that the program has not signifigntly changed the
number of voter turn-out; that the number of election-related complaints remains about the
same; and, that there have been no violations by participants of the rotes and requirements
of the program.
Gary, North Carolina:
- The amount of public funding awarded to runoff candidates equals the spending limit,
minus the funds raised by the candidates (funds disbursed after the runoff election}.
- Maximum of $20,000 for citywide office.
- Qualifying contributions required - $5,000
- Funding from general fund
- Spending limit of $25,000
- $4,000 contribution limit from individuals and non-party PAC's (does not apply to
political party committees, nor to a candidate's immediate family members)
Cary, North Carotins, provided public financing during on/y one election seasan in 2000.
In 2002, in State Board of Elections v: Jack Smith Julie Robinson and Town of Cary, the
S#ate Court ruled that Cary did not have the authority to administer the pubiic finance
3
program and the candidates were required to pay back the money that had been given to
them. In North Carolina a municipality must have State General Assembly approval to do
anything that is not already permitted in the State°s General Statutes. Gary's ordinance was
repealed thereafter The City of Gary has opted not to pursue public finding.
The March 13, 2007, staff report also listed information on sources of funding, the structure
of the existing programs, administration, and measured success of the programs to date. In
addition, in order to open discussion, the report included an option of a structure for a local
program.
On June 19, 2007, Council reviewed the report on the community input received at the
community workshop held on May 14, 2007. The public input also included a proposal for a
public financing program submitted by VOTE4SM, a group self-described as "a Santa
Monica citizen electoral reform coalition."
Options for a Local Program for Public Financing_of Election Campaigns
Staff has reviewed related information published by the Center for Governmental Studies
and has contacted many of the entities that currently have public financing programs to
gather information. After reviewing the data avai{able, staff has prepared the following list of
options for Council to consider including full financing programs as weA as a matching-funds-
only program with different variables. Please note that the variables may be changed in any
of the options and doing so will result in differing amounts of qualifying contributions, grant
funds, matching funds, and funding sources.
QPTION 1
Qualifying contributions: $500 per participating candidate to be raised in $5 increments
from 100 registered voters.
Seed Money: Up to $250 of the qualifying contributions may be used as seed money to pay
for costs incurred in raising the $500 qualifying contributions.
4
Initial Grant: A $25,000 initial grant will be disbursed to candidates that have qualified for
the. program after a final list of participating and non-participating qualified candidates is
certified.
Matching Funds: An additional $25,000 in matching funds will be disbursed to participating
candidates and may be used only to respond to non-participating opposing candidates that
have spent over the amount of the initial grant limit {$25,000), or to respond to independent
expenditures against the candidate, and only when the original grant amount has been
exhausted,
Discussion: A $5 contribution to a potential candidate for City Council should not impose a
financial hardship on the contributor or undue pressure on the recipient. Municipal Code
Section 11.04.010 requires that a candidate be nominated by not less than 100 registered
voters, so receiving contributions from 100 registered voters complies with this mandate.
Council may wish to discuss if $500 in qualifying contributions from 100 registered voters is
an indication of a serious candidate demonstrating he/she has a Strang voter support base,
and should be eligible for public financing.
OPTION 2
Qualifying contributions: $1,000 per participating candidate to be raised in $5 or $10
increments from 100 to 200 registered voters.
Seed Money: Up to $500 of the qualifying contributions may be used as seed money to pay
for costs associated in raising the $1,000 qualifying contributions.
Initial Grant: The $25,000 initial grant will be disbursed to candidates that have qualified for
the program after a final list of participating and non-participating qualified candidates is
certified.
5
Matching Funds: An additional $25,000 in matching funds will be disbursed to participating
candidates and may be used only to respond to non-participating opposing candidates that
have spent over the amount of the initial grant limit ($25,000}, or to respond to independent
expenditures in opposition to the participating candidate, and only when the original grant
amount has been exhausted.
Discussion: This option is basically the same as Option 1 except that it raises the qualifying
contributions to $1,000. This option may indicate a "stronger" public support for the
candidate because of the larger contribution received, andlor because of the increased
number of voters contributing to the candidate.
OPTION 3
Qualifying contributions: $5 contributions from 1 % of the registered voter population in the
City. As of November 2006, there were 57,455 registered voters. At that time, the proposed
number of contributors would have totaled 575 and the total amount of qualifying
contributions would amount to $2,875.
Seed Money: Up to $1,000 of the qualifying contributions may be used as seed money to
pay for costs associated in raising the qualifying contributions.
Initial Grant: A $40,000 initial grant wilt be disbursed immediately to candidates upon
qualifying for the program.
Matching Funds: Qoilar-for-dollar matching funds of up to 1.5 x the initial grant will be
disbursed to participating candidates. Once the initial grant has been exhausted, matching
funds are triggered by an independent expenditure in support of a participating or non-
participating opposing candidate over a cumulative amount of $15,000 from all sources; or a
dollar-for-dollar matching fund is triggered by any independent expenditure made in
opposition to a participating candidate. The total grant fund will be $100,000 ($40,000 initial
grant plus $60,000 matching grants).
6
Discussion: This is the proposal submitted by VOTE4SM, and attached as Exhibit 1.
OPTION 4
Qualifying contributions; $2,000 per participating candidate to be raised with a minimum of
$5 contributions and a maximum of $20 contributions per individual voter. Contributions may
be obtained from between 100 and 400 contributors at between $5 and $20 contributions
each. The minimum number of contributors required is the same number of registered voter
signatures required by the Municipal Code to qualify as a candidate.
Seed Money: Up to $500 of the qualifying contributions may be used as seed money to pay
for costs associated in raising the $2,000 qualifying contributions.
Initial Grant: Participating candidates will receive $40,000 in initial grant funds. A portion
will be disbursed after the three-month qualifying. period ends and the candidates file required
documents confirming receipt of qualifying contributions_ The second portion will be
disbursed when there is a certified final list of qualified participating and non-participating
candidates that will appear on the ballot.
Matching Funds: Participating candidates may also receive an additional maximum amount
of $40,000 that may be used only to respond to non-participating opposing candidates that
have spent over 4he amount of the grant limit ($40,000), or to respond to independent
expenditures against the participating candidate, and only when the original grant amount
has been exhausted.
Discussion: This proposal is similar to the first three except for the amount of the qualifying
contributions and the amount of the initial grant and matching funds grant.
7
OPTION 6 - Matching Funds Oniv.
Qualifying contributions: This option will not have a provision for qualifying contributions.
Instead, it will have a provision limiting the amount of campaign funds that a participating
candidate may raise.
Total Contributions Limit: A participating candidate may be allowed to raise a maximum
amount in campaign funds. For example a maximum contribution limit of $30,000 could be
set
Individual Contribution Limit: In recognition of a participating candidate's commitment to
the program Council may wish to consider the option of raising the contribution limif for
participating candidates. For example, the existing local individual contribution limit for
candidates participating in the program could be raised to one and one-half times, or twice
the contribution limit for non-participating candidates. In other words, if the local contribution
limit is $250, the limit could be raised for participating candidates to $325 (1.5x) or to $500
(2x) respectively, but would remain at $250 for non-participating candidates.
Seed Money: Since there will be no qualifying contributions required, there will be no
associated costs. For this reason, there is no provision for seed money in this option.
initial Grant: There will be no initial grant as the participating candidate would use hislher
own campaign contributions until the limit was exhausted:
Matching Funds: Participating candidates would receive a maximum amount equal to the
total con#ribution limit, dollar-for-dollar matching funds, that may be used only to respond to
non-participating opposing candidates that have spent over the amount of the grant limit or to
respond to independent expenditures in opposition to the participating candidates, and only
when the original grant amount has been exhausted.
8
Discussion
This matching funds only option is provided as a comparison to the above fuN financing
options and for discussion.
The amounts in these options .are provided as examples of how a local program can be
structured, and any amount in any option or its structure can be changed up or down should
Council wish to do so for discussion purposes.
In addition to the options listed above, in fhe March 13 2007, staff report staff included an
option that called for quali#ying contributions in the amount of $3,000, seed money of $1,000,
and candidates receiving an initial grant or $50,000 plus matching grant funds in the same
amount fora #otal grant fund of $100,000.
Cos# of Funding
As mentioned in the March 13, 2007, staff report, there were 13 council candidates in the
November 2000 election, 9 in 2002, 16 in 2004, and 10 in 2006. Based on these numbers,
the initia! funding amount could be based on the average number of 12 participating
candidates per election since 2000. The total amount of the initial grant pool required for
each option would be as follows:
OPTION 1
$600,000
OPTION 2
$600,000
OPTION 3
$1,200,000
OPTION 4
$960,000
OPTION 5
$ 360,000
However, anticipa#ing an increase of participants if a program was implemented and
publicized, it may be practical to anticipate half as many more candidates. In that case, for
18 potential candidates, the amounts would change as follows:
OPTION 1
$900,000
OPTION 2
$900,000
OPTION 3
$1,800,000
OPTION 4
$1,440,000
OPTION 5
$ 540,000
9
Selectino Amountts) of Grant Funds
In considering which, if any op#ion, to explore further Council should also consider the
analysis of local contributions and expenditures included in the March 13, 2007, staff report,
which stated:
"Below are average amounts for committee contributions received and expenditures made
per candidate, and for independent expenditures per candidate, for the 2002, 2004 and the
2006 elections. These figures do not include candidates that did not establish campaign
c®mmittees:
°'Gontributions and Expenditures
Election Number of
Year Candidates Contributions Expenses
2002 08 $ 29,396.00 $ 28,708.00
2004 11 $ 68,920.00 $ 70,108.00
2004" 10 $ 40,531.00 $ 39,033.00
2006 07 $ 39,911.00 $ 42,974.00
"Independent Expenditures
Election ~ of candidates
Year included in expenditure Total
2002 06 $ 16,167.00
2004 09 $ 68,938.00
*2004 08 $ 49,363.00
2006 05 $136,424.00
' Please note that two different numbers are reported for 2004. Under "Contributions and
F~cpenditures" the first contribution amount reflects the average contributions for ail the candidates
that established committees. However, because of the wide gap between the highest and the second
highest amount of contributions received by candidates in the 21704 election cycle (see exhibit A}, the
asterisked figures do not include the highest amount of contributions raised and spent by one
particular candidate. Under Independent Expenditures, the first number reflects the total of ail
independent expenditures made; however, the asterisked figures do not include the highest amount
spent in support of a particular candidate."
10
Funding Sources
Ali qualifying contributions from participating candidates in a full financing program will be
deposited into the public financing program account. In the options listed above,
contributions will be made only by registered voters in the jurisdiction. However, Council may
choose to provide for contributions from all residents incuding those not registered to vote.
Staff considered a wide array of possibilities for funding sources for the public financing of an
elections program including some suggestions listed in the Public Financing of Elections:
Where to Get the AAoney, by the Center for Governmental Studies. These possibilities
included but are not limited to a local tax on luxury items such as high-performance autos
(hummers, race cars, SUV's), endangered species leather and fur coats and accessories,
and other like items; increasing local civil or criminal fines and/or fees; communication
installations in the public right of way (cell phone antennas); add an additional tax to sales of
alcohol and tobacco; impose a surcharge on City bids; a ballot measure fora $1 to $5 tax per
resident; ballot measure for a public campaign finance bond; a fee based on a percentage on
independent expenditures; a fee imposed on PACS based on percentage of contributions
received and expenditures made during the reporting cycle; abuilt-in fee in contribution limit
for non-participating candidates (for example: if contribution limit is $250, $25 are given to the
city for public financing and the committee keeps $225} charging non-participating
candidates a filing fee and the cost of publishing and translating candidate statements; civil
penalties for violations of the focal public campaign finance law; personal voluntary
contributions; a "storage" fee when returning political signs posted illegally and removed by
city staff; and of course, from the City's General Fund.
The City A#tomey's office conducted some research on the above options and advised as
follows:
imposing a new tax. There are some things that the state want let a municipality tax and
there are a number of state requirements about how to impose or raise a tax; but, the
purpose of the tax is more important than what is being taxed. If a tax were imposed for the
11
purpose of publicly funding campaigns, it would be considered a special tax subject to the
requirement of approval by 2/3 of the electorate voting on the tax. In contrast, if a general tax
were imposed to increase the general fund for various purposes, only a majority would be
required.
A "voters tax" or poll tax (a flat tax on all votersj. This might be possible as it would be
like a parcel tax with the rate based upon the number of occupants of a parcel, The risk is
that it would be invalidated as an unconstitutional property tax. 0t is not clear that any
California city currently has a poll tax.
Development tax. A viable possibility might be a development tax, which is an excise tax on
the ac#ivity of development. It could be based on the number of units, number of bedrooms
or square footage of development.
Campaign contribution fee. The option of imposing a fee on independent expenditures or
PACS is legally risky, given the many First Amendment cases affording added protections to
such expenditures. The same applies to the possibility of requiring that a percentage of any
campaign contribution go to the City. It's dicey to limit or penalize participation in the political
process.
Enforcement and collection ®f fees. The City can impose and increase these types of fees
as well as civil penalties. However; enforcement and collection of these fees would be a
practical problem.
Bond Financing. This type of financing is usually used for funding of capital improvements
and may be an impractical solution because of the finite life of the funding (and the.
improvement).
12
Storage fee for illegally posted signs. The City can impose a "storage fee" to individuals
retrieving political signs #hat were illegally posted on public property and were removed by
city staff. The revenue generated from this activity would be minimal.
Surcharge on City bids. In California, this type of fee could only IegaHy reflect the cost of
processing the bid. It could not reflect the value. of the contract. If the "fee" was higher than
the processing cost, it would be revenue generating and would be classifred as a tax under
California law.
Considering the above information, it may be possible to implement one or two of
suggestions but, unless the voters were to approve a tax to support a public financing
program, it is unlikely that an on-going stream of revenue could be secured. As in most of
the existing local programs, the program would likely need to be financed by general funds.
Current Public Financing Efforts
Attached as Exhibit 2 is an information report fo Council dated June 11, 2002. In the report
staff reviews policy and practice of election activities undertaken that could be considered a
type of public financing.
Administration of the Program
As .discussed in an earlier staff report, staff proposes that should Council pursue the
implementation of public financing of electoral campaigns, Council initially consider creating a
new division under the Elections OfFcial's department that would be staffed with one
individual full-time for one year, every other year, to handle the technical portion of the
process, and direct staff to assign a member of the Finance Department to handle the
financial, accounting, and auditing aspects of the program. Council can revisit this.
arrangement and modify it as needed, after the program has been implemented and has
gone fhrough the firs# election cycle.
13
Council may consider establishing an in-house committee made up of a representative from
the City Attamey's Office, the City Clerk's Office, the City. Manager's Office and the Finance
department; or, Council may wish to appoint a committee made up of residents to conduct
the main#enance and auditing activities of the program.
Reoortino Excenditures when incurred
At the June 19, 2007, meeting Council also expressed an interest in having a local
requirement #hat campaign expenses be reported when they are incurred. Gouncil may
consider directing staff to return with an ordinance establishing such a requirement. Prior to
doing so, however, a discussion should be held on what the definition is of "incurring" an
expense. The definition could be established at any of three different poin#s or incurring an
expense: At the time services/suppliesJequipment are ordered; at the time they are used; or,
at the time they are paid. In addition, discussion should include the definition of a violation of
this requirement and enforcement of the violation.
Current Public Financino Efforts
Attached as Exhibit 2 is an information report to Council dated June 11, 2002. In the report
staff reviews policy and practice of election activities undertaken that could be considered a
type of public financing.
In summary, Council directed staff to provide more information on public financing of
electoral campaigns and funding sources. S#aff recommends that Council review the
information provided and the options listed for discussion, and provide direction to staff.
Budoe#/Financia! Imoacf
This is an informational report and does not yet have a budget or financial impact.
14
Attachments:
Attachment 1 VOTE4SM Program Proposal
Attachment 2 Information Report dated June 11, 2002
Prepared. by: Maria M. Stewart, City Clerk
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
Maria M. Stewart, City~lerk
(Director, Department of Records and
Election Services)
Ewelt
15
Santa Monica city elections reform proposal
Submitted for public review and discussion
by
VOTE4SM, a Santa Monica citizen electoral reform coalition
Produced with the assistance of
California Clean Money Campaign
California Common Cause
Center for Governmental Studies
Xandra Kayden, UCLA
Southern California Americans for Democratic Action
Santa Monica Democratic Club
Introducfion
A key concern voiced at the May 14, 2007 Santa Monica City-sponsored
workshop on improving elections in Santa Monica was how to reduce the
influence of outside special interests on city elections. In recent years,
campaigns for Santa Monica city office have seen an upsurge in large
independent expenditures. Many of these expenditures come from outside
the community, which means that the individuals and political action
committees investing in local elections are not accountable to Santa Monica
residents and voters.
Adopting a voluntary system of full public financing of political campaigns
for elected offices would help control and contain this trend. Under a full
public financing program, candidates for City Council would be eligible to
receive sufficient public funds to run viable campaigns.
To qualify for public funding, candidates must to receive a set number of $5
qualifying contributions and signatures from registered voters to show that
they have a broad base of support. Publicly funded candidates must agree to
spending limits and take no private contributions other than limited seed
funds that can only be used to qualify. Candidates will not be allowed to
raise or spend additional money beyond what they receive from the fund.
Publicly funded candidates receive enough baseline public funds to run
competitive campaigns. If the participating candidate is outspent by an
opponent who does not participate or if independent groups run ads or
mailings attacking them or supporting their opponent, they receive matching
funds within days to effectively respond.
A system of publicly funded election campaigns enables more candidates,
including more minorities and women, to run viable campaigns. It levels the
playing campaign field, promotes more competitive elections, discourages
negative campaigns, and reduces the cost of election campaigns.
The following proposal for Santa Monica is modeled on similar full public
financing systems in place in Portland (OR), Albuquerque (NM), Arizona
and Maine, and has been customized to reflect extraordinary existing local
involvement, and electoral safeguards already in place for Santa Monica
City Council elections.
Program Outline
Eligibility
Potential Participating candidates must declare themselves eligible for public
financing with the city clerk's office prior to the start of the Qualifying
Period.
Qualifying Contributions
Participating candidates who have properly declared themselves eligible for
public financing must gather qualifying contributions of $5 from 1 % of the
registered voters in Santa Monica. As of 2006, 57,455 residents of Santa
Monica were registered to vote. Assuming that number does not change,
clean candidates need contributions from 575 d~erent registered voters to
be processed and verified in order to receive an allotment of public funds.
Qualifying contributions must be in the form of $5 to enable the
participation of all residents. Registered voters are allowed to give
qualifying contributions to more than one person. However, citizens will not
be allowed to give qualifying contributions to more candidates than are open
city council seats in that election cycle. If a citizen gives qualifying
contributions to more candidates than are open city council seats, valid
contributions will be discerned by the date of acquisition. All qualifying
contributions must be deposited into the clean elections fund, even if the
contribution is in support of a candidate that does not eventually raise the
required number of contributions necessary for public financing.
Qualifying Period
Eligible candidates will be allowed to gather qualifying contributions from
May 1 ~` to July 31 ~` of election year. Council is recommended to move the
filing date to before the start of the qualifying period.
Seed Money
Seed money contributions are limited to $100 per donor and must not exceed
a cumulative amount above $1,000. This money is to be raised before the
qualifying period and can only be used to gather qualifying contributions in
accordance with the seed money guidelines set forth by the Clean Elections
Commission. Thane who give seed money contributions can also give
qualifying contributions as Long as they are a Santa Monica
resident/registeredvotcr. An eligible candidate is not allowed to loan his/her
self seed money.
In-kind Contributions
In-kind contributions are limited to $100 per donor per eligible candidate,
In-kind contributions cannot pass a cumulative amount of 10% of the initial
grant. ($4,000}
Initial Grant
Having raised the appropriate number of qualifying contributions, proven an
adherence to the conduct required of an eligible candidate, and having had
the appropriate number of qualifying contributions validated, the
eligible/participating candidate will receive an initial grant of public funds.
Money is granted as soon as possible, and is not restricted until after the
qualifying period. An initial grant of $40,000 is recommended for the 2008
election.
Matching Funds
1) Non-participating candidate's committees
Non-participating candidates can spend up to the initial grant limit
($40,000), without repercussion. For every dollar spent above the initial
grant amount, each participating candidate will receive a dollar-for-dollar
grant up to the individual participating candidate's matching fund cap.
(2.5 X the initial grant; $100,000)
2) Independent Expenditures
A. Independent Expenditures supporting any candidate
Independent expenditures in support of a participating or non-
participating candidate over a cumulative amount of $15,000 from all
sources triggers dollar-for-dollar matching funds of the amount above
the $15,000 threshold to all participating candidates who did not
benefit from the expenditure.
B. Independent Expenditures opposing participating candidates
Any independent expenditure made in opposition to a participating
candidate results in dollar-for-dollar matching funds granted solely to
the attacked candidate.
3} Matching Funds Cap
The maximum amount of total public funds a participating candidate can
receive including matching funds shall be no more than 2.5 X-the initial
grant. ($100,000)
Disclosure
In order to provide an effective clean money system, full and timely
disclosure of campaign and independent expenditures for all candidates is
absolutely necessary. Expenditures must be reported within 24 hours of the
time the expense is incurred. Matching funds must be made available to the
appropriate participating candidate within 24 hours of the expenditure being
reported. A coherent posting of all expenditures, organized by candidate, by
Independent Expenditure committee, should be available for the general
public in real-time.
Clean Elections Commission
The public financing system requires that a commission made up of city
staffand/or volunteers be set with the responsibility of evaluating the clean
elections system after each election cycle. The commission would identify
possible abuses of the system as well as make adjustments to the eligibility
requirements, required percentage of qualifying contributions, the initial
grant amount, and the unmatched independent expenditure window amount.
_~,,N~
_~w_._F
City of
S8IIt8 NonieB"'
INFORMATION REPORT
T0: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information Regarding Campaign Reform and Public
Financing for Candidates for Elective Office
DATE: June 11, 2002
INTRODUCTION
This report responds in part to a motion made by the City Council at its December
11, 2001, Council Meeting related to a discussion on Campaign Financing
Restrictions, and also supplements the campaign reform ordinance prepared by
the City Attorney and listed on the June 11th agenda. A copy of the minutes for
that item is attached:
BACKGROUND
Council directed staff to investigate the possibility of providing some kind of public
support to candidates running for elective office and to return with
recommendations after the 2002 election cycle. Staff plans to conduct research on
what other government entities may be doing regarding this subject, and return to
Council after this fall's municipal election with options and possible
recommendations.
However, at this time staff would like to provide the following information on
existing policy and practice, in which the activities undertaken may be considered a
type of public financing:
Filing Fees
The State Election Code provides for the imposition of a $25.00 candidate filing
fee, and many cities require such a fee, the City of Santa Monica does not have
this requirement. No records have been found to indicate whether the City has
ever charged this particular fee, but staff proposes that this policy has been in
place for at least the last twenty years.
Although not related to candidates, but for your information, the Elections Code
also provides for establishing a maximum of $200 filing fee when proponents file a
notice of intent to circulate a petition for an initiative. The City of Santa Monica
does not require such a fee, and the absence of records suggests that this policy
has also been in place for many years. A few months ago, staff conformed the
Municipal Code to existing policy by making a provision for no filing fee required.
Cost of Printing Candidate Statements
The Election Code provides for candidate reimbursement of the cost of printing
their respective statements on the voter's information pamphlet, and of the cost of
translating and printing the statements into a second language. This pamphlet is
distributed to every voter in the jurisdiction a few weeks prior to the election. The
approximate cost of printing a candidate statement in English is $375, the cost of
translating into a second language such as Spanish is $125, and of printing it in the
second language an additional $375. In some cities, the candidate pays for the
entire cost; in others, the municipality contributes part of the cost, such as printing
it in English and requiring the candidate to pay for the translation and the foreign
language printing; in yet other cities, the municipality contributes a base amount,
say $200, or $300, and the candidate pays for the remaining balance. Finally, in
some cities such as Santa Monica, the municipality pays for all the candidate
statement costs.
Cost of Candidate Statement on City's Website
Information Services Division advises that the cost of posting the statement on the
City's website is minimal. The approximate cost for the actual posting is about
$5.00, with the network costs being less than $1.00 for afour-month period.
If a candidate wanted to obtain an Internet service provider in order to put his/her
statement on a website, the cost for the candidate, as estimated by Information
Systems Division would be a minimum of $8.00 per month, probably more. An
added non-quantifiable value is that with the City hosting the site for all candidates,
the statements are easily found and available, and subject related.
Cost of Airing Candidate Information on CityTV
CityTV estimates that each candidate receives approximately three hours of
airtime over the course of a campaign season, including the live candidate call-in
program and the replays, the League of Women Voters-sponsored candidate
forums and replays, and the candidate interviews and replays. If this airtime were
purchased from Adelphia Media as 240 thirty-second spots, aired on various cable
networks, the cost would range between $9,000 and $14,000.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, based upon the above figures, it is estimated that 4he City
contributes between $10,000 and $15,000 to each candidate running for office at
every election, and that this amount may be considered a type of "public financing."
Elections\ElectionReform\publicfinancing. into. doc