> -----Original Message----- > From: David Brauer > > Did the mayor's ethics group consider campaign-finance > reform? Such as: > > * More timely disclosures for city candidates. (This includes > required electronic disclosures, such as posting on the web > so that voters & reporters could more fully analyze > contributions close to an election.)
[TB] The city (or Henn. County where the reports are filed) has gotten way behind on this one. Last time I checked they still relied on paper forms. At least the state accepts electronically filed forms. It would be reasonably easy to adopt the same form statewide (most of the information required is the same) and use the same electronic filing system for all. Since the State of MN already has developed the structure, why not avoid duplication and put everyone on the same system? > * Reduced or altered contribution limits. (Currently, MN > Statutes 211A.12 allows the mayor and at-large Parks and > Board of Estimate members, and all Library and School Board > of candidates to raise $500 per donor in an election year; > council members and district parks commissioners can raise > $300 per donor. In non-election years, the limit for everyone > is $100.) [TB] I don't think the current limits are to high. They have been eroded by inflation since they were originally set. Any contributor giving over $100 in a year is disclosed. It costs something over a quarter of a million dollars for a serious candidate to run for Mayor of Minneapolis. The $500 limit is only two tenths of one percent of that. Unless you are going to have complete funding of all city campaigns, I don't think giving two tenths of one percent of the cost of the campaign is unreasonable. > * A ban on non-election year fundraising. [TB] I have 2 objections to this. First its incumbent protection. If nobody could have begun to raise money to run for Mayor in 2001 prior to January 1, 2001 the challenges would have had a tremendous disadvantage in challenging an incumbent mayor who had the opportunity to be all over the media based on the office she held. Second, office holders use much of their campaign funds for constituent services. Unless the city decides to fund these services it is to the advantage of many of the constituents that these services (i.e. newsletters, handouts at neighborhood meetings) be provided. > * If no non-election year ban, more frequent campaign-finance > reports in non-election years. (You only have to file > annually now, meaning a contribution received in Jan. 2003 > isn't known until Jan. 31, 2004.) [TB] Since only contributions of over $100 are reported and those contributions are prohibited in non-election years, I don't think additional reports would give us a whole lot of useful information. Unless you require all contributors to be listed (which I would not oppose but would question how meaningful it really is) you don't know contributors, just aggregate amount of contributions and how much was spent. I would make election year reports at least quarterly instead of just before elections. > Finally, since many of the rules are in state law, can the > city enact its own tougher standards? [TB] My non lawyer guess is probably not because the city only has the power to do the things the state authorizes it to do. Terrell ----------------------------------- Terrell Brown Loring Park Minneapolis, MN 55403-2315 Terrell at terrellbrown dot org _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
