Due to the editorial criticism given to most local leaders, in
regard to their opposition to the campaign finance ordinance, some
explanation is due from my perspective.
Dear Editor:
Due to the editorial criticism given to most local leaders, in regard to their opposition to the campaign finance ordinance, some explanation is due from my perspective. This is how it will affect or future political races:
First, the elections department has a number of current problems that have been ongoing for a number of years. Unfortunately for our county, it manifest during this past primary election. Is it all John Hodges fault? He deserves a portion of the blame, but the fact of the matter is, as with most departments in the county, they are under-funded and under-staffed.
Not only does the campaign finance ordinance make a candidate’s documentation more complex, it makes monitoring by the elections department more demanding. Like most ordinances the county explores, nobody ever discusses the ultimate cost in implementation.
Not much information was given on details of which department would enforce and prosecute violations. Is it the district attorney’s office? The severity of enforcement could be politically motivated. Penalties for violations include fines, prison time and loss of a political seat after an election win. This could be a deterrent to good community-minded people from seeking office.
Second, while campaigning I did not come upon one constituent that expressed a concern for campaign reform. What I want to focus on is what voters are concerned with. And that is land use, housing, public safety and our children’s well being in this community. In District 2, one candidate spent more money than my campaign, however I still managed the most votes. Money still does not buy elections in this county.
Listening and being responsive to the voters is what makes campaigns successful. The thresholds of expenditures and contributions that were being discussed would not have been a factor in our race if this ordinance was in place. However, those spending and contribution limits can be adjusted by the board based on political need. The campaign reform ordinance could inherently give the incumbent an advantage being that spending and fund raising for the opponent is curtailed.
Right now, let’s first clean up the existing problems in our elections department before creating new ones. There’s plenty of work already to do to make sure the information to the voters and candidates that come out of the elections department is fair and accurate.
If you really want to minimize outside influence and create true political reform, perhaps within the same ordinance term limits or supervisors should be discussed.
What do you think? Give me a call at 801-8246 and please let me know whether you agree or not. I would be happy to hear from you.
Anthony Botelho,
San Juan Bautista
