January 7, 2003

THE SAN FRANCISCO voter handbook may be big, even unwieldy at times – but unlike voter handbooks in a lot of places, it's actually pretty useful. That's because the handbook contains not only "official" (and generally bland) arguments for and against ballot measures but also arguments submitted by individuals and groups all over the city. These paid arguments are a remarkable exercise in democracy: for a few hundred dollars, anyone can get his or her point of view on an issue published and mailed to every registered voter in the city.

And yet, as Savannah Blackwell reports on page 14, Mayor Willie Brown wants to eliminate the paid arguments – ostensibly as a way to save the city money. That's a terrible idea, and the Elections Commission and the Board of Supervisors should reject it immediately.

Elections commissioner Michael Mendelson, who is pushing the issue, argues that the city spent more than $500,000 subsidizing the paid arguments in the most recent election. The per-word charge, he says, doesn't come close to covering the cost of printing and mailing the extra pages. That may be true – but even so, it's a cheap price to pay.

These days, with the increased concentration of media ownership and the horrifying lack of interest by the major local media in San Francisco political issues, there aren't that many way for an underfunded campaign or activist group to get its message out. Without the paid arguments in the ballot handbook, the slick advertising dominated by wealthy candidates and interest groups will have even more influence over local elections.

The truth is, the subsidized arguments in the ballot handbook are a form of public financing of political campaigns – something that city officially favors.