Countering corporate cash

Public finance measure aims to help mayoral candidates compete against aggressive fundraisers

By Joe Dignan

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will soon consider whether to extend public campaign financing to candidates for mayor. The proposal, by Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, was unanimously approved by the Ethics Commission in December and appears to have strong support lined up at the board.

"Public financing lessens the influence of big money and special interests ... and promotes a more level playing field," Mirkarimi told the Bay Guardian. Mirkarimi is a longtime campaign finance reform advocate who led the 1995 effort to put the city's present campaign contribution limits in place and helped create a public financing program for supervisorial candidates.

Six supervisors – Aaron Peskin, Gerardo Sandoval, Jake McGoldrick, Tom Ammiano, Chris Daly, and Mirkarimi – have already announced their support for the measure, and Sups. Bevan Dufty and Sophie Maxwell both told us they like the idea in concept but haven't analyzed the details. The measure needs eight votes because of the way city election laws are written, and supporters are hopeful it will be approved.

To qualify for public financing, mayoral candidates must abide by a spending limit of $1,375,000, agree to participate in at least three debates, and raise at least $25,000 from at least 250 San Franciscans. At that point, the candidate will receive $50,000 in public financing and further grants of as much as four public dollars to one dollar in private contributions (according to complicated formulas), up to a grant of $850,000 for $525,000 raised privately.

There are also provisions that could allow the spending limit to be exceeded in races where a candidate raises millions of dollars in private funding, as Gavin Newsom did in 2003. The fund is capped at $6 million per election, and if that level isn't reached after all publicly funded candidates reach the spending limit, it will be divided evenly among those candidates until it is exhausted.

Progressives, like Mirkarimi and the plan's main spokesman, Rob Arnow, say the program will allow candidates from across the political spectrum to run for office as long as they can demonstrate a strong base of support. Matt Gonzalez, who raised about $800,000 for his 2003 mayoral bid, would have had his money roughly doubled, and might have had a better shot at beating Newsom, who spent a record $5.7 million.

Supporters of the measure note that it's part of a national trend toward reducing the role of private contributions in political races. Los Angeles and New York City both offer partial public financing for mayoral and city council candidates, while Maine and Arizona offer full public financing programs for all state contests. And in December, Connecticut passed a full public financing program that almost eliminates private contributions.

But the reform is likely to be opposed by some because of its cost, while others object on principle. Nathan Nayman, who heads the downtown interest group Committee on Jobs, opposes the concept of public financing. He told us, "My tax dollars should not support someone I don't want to see in office."

Newsom would be most directly affected by the plan because it would help finance his challengers in 2007, although his spokespeople said he hasn't yet taken a position on the measure. But both Jim Ross and Eric Jaye – his top consultants in the 2003 mayoral race – say they like the idea.

Advocates say public financing is the wave of the future. "Eventually most campaigns will be publicly financed," said Bob Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based nonprofit Center for Governmental Studies, which helped write the plan, "because the voters will recognize that most people give because they want something from government."

E-mail news@sfbg.com.