HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-13 Bob Shambrom1
Mejia, Anthony
From:
Sent:Wednesday, November 06, 2013 7:45 AM
To:Goodwin, Heather; Dietrick,
Christine; Mejia, Anthony;
Subject:Shanbrom absence
I'm sorry to inform the committee that I will not be able to make the meeting tomorrow, Nov. 7. I mistakenly double-
booked the date some weeks ago and cannot get out of my other commitment. Here are my comments from last meeting
that I wished to present at tomorrow's meeting:
1) While the contribution limit of $100 established in 1974 represents $475 in 2013 dollars, the contribution limit of $200
established in 2005 represents only $240 in 2013 dollars when checked against the CPI.
However, neither this calculation nor any other calculation is particularly relevant to the issues/questions at hand, "Is
there a compelling reason to raise the limit?" "Is the limit sufficient to allow candidates to get their message out?" "Do we
wish to 'disenfranchise' middle-income contributors by placing the contribution limits only within reach of the wealthy?"
To illustrate the last point, currently a family of four adults (there exist such cases) might contribute up to $2400 to
influence the outcome of a city election, 3 seats. If the limit were raised to $300 that amount would rise to $3600. Only a
relatively few families, ostensibly those with strong financial interests in the outcome, can afford that amount. For those
committee members who are concerned with an inordinate influence of money in our democratic, not plutocratic, society, I
would ask, "Why push our city elections further in that direction?"
I maintain my preference for a $200 limit on individual contributions.
2) While the total amount of supplemental money in 2012, $6,400, accounted for only about 6% of the total money
contributed, for one candidate the amount represented about 15% of the contributions. So while the average amount is
low, there are now and may be in the future specific cases where the supplemental contributions are/could be significant. I
believe voters have an interest in having this info available. Another aspect of this issue is that voters have a legitimate
interest in knowing whether candidates are supported by "the people" with low and mid-range contributions.
Reviewing the forms required for supplemental reporting I do not see a major burden in this sort of reporting. And it
would seem that in this the age of computers such a report could be generated with a couple clicks of a mouse if the
campaign treasurer uses the right software when intaking the contributions. But if it is somewhat troublesome I think the
amount of money in play here is significant enough to warrant the extra effort to report and record it.
3) I wish to agendize for discussion the addition of the modern word, "transparency," as below in the
regulations. "Transparency" is a word which has come into common usage in approximately the last 15 years or so, the
age of the Internet, to describe a process in which the truth is not just forthright and forthcoming, but is also easily
accessible and visible. Transparency is the means by which the stated goals of "integrity, honesty and fairness" are best
assured.
Proposed revision to 2.40.020 A.1.: To promote integrity, honesty, fairness and <transparency> in municipal election
campaigns.
4) In terms of the city attorney being placed in the uncomfortable position of having to enforce campaign regulations
violations against elected officials, perhaps the responsibility for making a recommendation to pursue enforcement could
be made by another agency, perhaps the CRRC since it is reasonably arms length from the outcome and is up to speed
on the regulations. The City Council could make the final decision, with a tie vote or better obligating action on the part of
the city attorney. In the rare occasion that a city attorney might not wish to act, the CC could hire a private attorney.
Respectfully,
Bob Shanbrom
-----Original Message-----
From: Goodwin, Heather <hgoodwin@slocity.org>