Note: The DTH source article was incorrect; read Bob Hall's comment below. Thanks, Bob. -JB
Did anyone else read the article in today's Daily Tar Heel about the meeting of the Mayor's Committee on Campaign Finance on Monday? Below is an excerpt, which concerns me a bit..
The committee decided to include rescue funds as a separate provision despite concerns about complicating the campaign process, financing the fund and enforcing the necessary spending reports.
Benchmarks for matching candidates' spending with public funding also were also established.
Candidates for council office will receive $3,000 in public funds if they can raise $750 from personal contributions and $2,250 from other local avenues.
Mayoral candidates must raise $1,500 in personal contributions and an additional $4,500 from community sources to be matched with $6,000 in public funds.
"It does open up the field to more citizens who do have a real base in the community but may not necessarily have access to a lot of money," said Bob Hall, executive director of Democracy North Carolina, a Durham-based nonprofit that advocates for campaign reform.
Surely I must have read that wrong. It sounds like to run for mayor under the pubic financing option, we're currently looking at a figure of a required personal contribution of $1,500, and half of that to run for council. Maybe that isn't a lot of money for the incumbents, but I look around my neighborhood and wonder how many of them would ever be able to cough up that much dough. Matching funds are great, but I'd prefer to see a scheme where 100% of the initial funds to be matched are coming from small donations of individual donors. I emailed the story's author, Ariel Zirulnick, who confirmed that this is the correct interpretation:
The $750 for council members is seed money which can come from the
individual and/or their family members. The $2,250 is qualifying
contributions, which are donations from community members in small
increments (typically $15- 20). You have to meet that $750 and $2250
combination in order to be matched with the $3,000 in public funds.
Do we really want to lock out low-income people from being able to participate in the public financing program? I'm sure some folks think that's a drop in the bucket, but for others of us, $750 is 2+ months of rent, the cost of our first car, or utilities for a year. Sure, public financing is opt-in, but it ought to be leveling the playing field, not creating more hurdles for entry. Don't expect students, retired folks on fixed incomes, or other people without a great deal of means (who in this community are often minorities) to be rushing into this system if it's approved with these numbers in place.
Issues:
Comments
This has to change
I'm so glad you posted this, Jason. I am a big fan of public financing, but am completely shocked at the expectation that a someone should have put ANY of their own money into a campaign to be considered a "serious candidate." And setting that minimum at a rate that could easily be higher than a month's rent is grossly unfair.
I think I put ina few hundred dollars to setlle my debt when I ran, but I also raised over $4,000 in donations of under $100 each and could never have met this requirement.
The point should be to measure community support, not personal resources.
Correction for the original story
I’d be shocked too – but it’s not true. Unfortunately, the DTH reporter got the facts wrong. I was at the meeting and have helped think through the framework for the proposal with council members.
The proposal says a candidate is allowed to raise or spend up to $750 in the current manner for the campaign before making a decision to enter the public financing program and begin raising qualifying contributions. It’s essentially seed money to explore if you want to mount a campaign and could, for example, help finance your first mailing. On the other hand, you could declare immediately that you’re going to begin raising qualifying contributions and forget about the seed money stage.Thanks for the clarification