There are good ideas behind the proposal to limit campaign
contributions and spending in San Benito County races.
There are good ideas behind the proposal to limit campaign contributions and spending in San Benito County races.
High campaign costs in other jurisdictions mean politicians have to spend time raising money rather than doing the work of the people. It’s also true that the financial clout wielded by wealthy people and organizations should not have a disproportionate influence on politicians. And campaigns should be limited to spending the amount of money needed to effectively communicate the message to voters.
There are some things about the recent moves toward finance reform we whole-heartedly endorse. The supervisors voted to post campaign finance paperwork on the Internet. That shines a welcome ray of sunshine on the source of the cash that fuels all races. The city of Hollister should follow suit.
But other specifics in the proposal the supervisors will mull over on Tuesday raise some concerns.
It puts a voluntary $10,000 cap on district elections in the county, such as the county supervisor races, and a voluntary $25,000 limit for countywide elections. Individuals would be limited to donating $100 to a candidate unless that candidate agrees to the voluntary cap. In that case, they would be limited to a $250 donation. Also, anyone who donates at least $25 will have their name disclosed in the contributions reports that will be posted on the Web.
We have some questions:
n How were the figures arrived at?
n Are the limits high enough to allow someone to run an effective campaign?
n Is $250 too strict? It doesn’t seem like a politician can be bought off for even $500.
n How much will it cost the Elections Office to process the paperwork to make public every contribution over $25?
The county should do a thorough analysis of how much it costs to run a campaign in San Benito County to ensure the limits are reasonable. If not, name recognition alone could allow incumbents to overwhelm newcomers who have slim means to get their message out.
And some already have spent more money than the proposed limits to get elected. In the recent campaign for the District 5 seat, Jaime De La Cruz spent $15,000 and won by 10 votes. Both sides of the Measure G campaign spent more than $400,000.
The goal of campaign finance reform is to reduce the influence big money has on local politics – or in the case of San Benito County, to put limits in place before there are problems. But if reform goes too far, it may cause a backlash. The new board in January might revoke the new law. And who knows if there would be the desire to take another stab at an important issue.
The supervisors should table the matter on Tuesday to allow for more analysis so meaningful, lasting campaign finance reform can be put in place.
To respond to this editorial or comment on this issue, please send or bring letters to Editor, The Hollister Free Lance, 350 Sixth St., Hollister, Calif. 95023 or e-mail to [email protected].
