GUEST OPINION (printed in the Daily Camera, March 23, 1997)BGA Proposes Local Campaign Finance Reform Initiative
(Presented to the Boulder City Council on March 18, 1997)Since the November election, much has been revealed regarding the fundraising activities of our national political parties, with many column inches devoted to the idea of campaign finance reform. Since February 4, much energy has gone into discussing this issue as applied to the local level here in Boulder. This dialogue has been led by citizens concerned about the role which money plays in our political environment. Based on this dialogue and our discussions with concerned citizens and community groups, we believe support exists to proactively address this issue.
Steps currently exist which can be taken to help eliminate money as the prime determinant of a person's political opportunity, access, and influence. Following are four policies designed to level the playing field and to free the electoral arena from the distorting and corrosive effects of money.
Policy 1 would use city funds to print a voter information guide, thus providing city council candidates an additional opportunity to educate the voters on their views. This guide could consist of candidate-written position papers which would be circulated to registered voters by mail or through inclusion in Public Service or other utility bills. This policy could be expanded to allow for the printing of the voter's guide in local newspapers.
Policy 2 is taken from the cities of Ft. Collins, Denver, and Wheat Ridge, which have mandatory campaign contribution limits. The Ft. Collins ordinance limits all donors to fifty dollar contributions per candidate, be that a cash or in-kind donation. This policy would require candidates to develop a broad base of community support in order to raise the funds necessary to run a viable campaign.
In the disastrous 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling, the Supreme Court equated money with speech, saying that just as no restrictions can be placed on a person's right to free speech, in the same way no restrictions can be placed on how a person spends his or her money. Thus, limits on such spending, as related to political campaign expenditures, are illegal. These last two policies, then, would have to be voluntary.
Policy 3 would apply Amendment 15, passed by Colorado voters last November, to the local level. A voluntary campaign expenditure limit would be established, and then pressure applied, through the risk of bad public relations, to encourage candidates to follow the guidelines. Analysis of the candidate expenditures from past city council elections shows that candidates have consistently spent between 9 and 11 cents per registered voter on campaigns. Increasing this by fifty percent, to 15 cents per registered voter, seems reasonable and would for November 1997 result in a voluntary campaign expenditure limit of approximately $11,000.
Policy 4 is based on the Maine Clean Elections Act, passed by the voters of Maine last November, and which calls for the public financing of political campaigns. Candidates qualify for public funds by demonstrating grassroots support in the community. Once certified, all campaign expenditures would come from the public fund. All certified candidates would receive equal amounts of money to spend on their campaigns. Where would this public campaign fund come from? A voluntary check off on city income tax forms or property tax bills is one proposal. (To equal the 1995 total campaign expenditures, every registered voter would have to contribute $1.58.) A second option would be a 0.01 percent increase in the city's sales tax, equaling one cent for every one hundred dollars spent. Based on 1996 revenues, this would raise almost $200,000 per year, easily covering the candidate campaign expenditures of our city elections. Funds not spent could be turned over to the general fund to be spent as best deemed by city council.
The issue of money and politics is certainly a sticky one. However, very few people would argue that the unrestricted flow of money into the political spectrum is healthy for a democracy, whether on a national or a local level. Once a democracy is infected, eliminating the virus becomes very difficult. Thus we believe that it is important for Boulder to be proactive on this issue, and not wait until the fox has gotten into the henhouse to act.
We offered these suggestions to Council, without prioritization, on March 18, and are now presenting them to the public in hopes of beginning a community-wide dialogue on the role that money will - or will not - play in our democracy. These ideas are either on the ground in municipalities nationwide, or are those that are widely considered to be workable solutions to the campaign finance reform puzzle. This is an all encompassing issue, one that relates specifically to the health of a community's democracy. We have the power to show that we care about that democracy.
Return to the Boulder Green Alliance home page