SF Examiner – Consider Funding S.F. Campaigns

November 23, 2005

Looking to reduce the influence of large campaign donors on mayors and candidates, San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi has proposed legislation to establish a public financing system for mayoral campaigns. The City already provides limited public financing for Board of Supervisors campaigns.

Supporters say there are several benefits to public financing. Among them, when candidates don't depend on private donors for the money they need to run campaigns, they can spend less time seeking money and more time talking to voters about their ideas. Candidates also are freed from pressure to do something for donors in exchange for their gifts.

For candidates who can raise enough money on their own to demonstrate a substantial base of support, Mirkarimi's plan would provide matching funds up to a maximum of $850,000. Candidates would have to independently raise $25,000 from at least 250 San Francisco donors to qualify for the minimum funding of $50,000, and would need to raise $525,000. Spending by campaigns that accept the public financing would be capped at $1.375 million. Candidates who take the funding would be required to participate in three debates.

Candidates could still choose to decline any public financing and fill their war chest on their own, and it's likely that many of the strongest candidates would choose to do that. Gavin Newsom's successful campaign for mayor in 2003 came in at $5.7 million, and it's hard to imagine a candidate capable of raising that much money would forgo that opportunity.

Still, for candidates who have good ideas but lack a line to major donors, public financing could provide sufficient funds to make their voices heard.

Mirkarimi's plan already has the support of the League of Women Voters, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association and other groups.

There are a number of questions about public funding of mayors races that The City should address before it gets too far into the process, though. For instance, could restricting big donations in one place, like squeezing a balloon, simply force the money to bulge out somewhere else, such as issue campaigns or independent groups not directly part of a candidate's campaign and would such new spending be clearly and quickly reported? Should The City be spending taxpayer money to support the career ambitions of politicians? Should San Franciscans have a say in which candidates their tax dollars support?

It's unlikely, in any event, that public financing of mayoral candidates would be the magic bullet to level the playing field. Candidates, supporters and campaign managers have a long history of responding to new rules in ways the rulemakers never expected.

But a public financing system could be an important part of making races for mayor cleaner, fairer and more focused on substantive issues. That makes it important enough that San Francisco should very thoroughly examine how such a system might work in The City and whether there would be sufficient public benefit to put it in place.