RE: [Mpls] Campaign finance considered in ethics report?
Sorry it took me so long to respond to this... Victoria Heller wrote, of campaign financing: Those in the know make a $50 profit by applying for the political contribution refund. Sorry, Victoria, but the PCRP is not available to those who make donations to candidates for Minneapolis offices. The PCRP is a state program. This kind of factual error makes your larger (and unsubstantiated) reports less believable. This is unfortunate, because I agree with your basic point: money has a hugely corrosive impact on politics, including local politics. One point of disagreement, though, is that you seem to think that the corruption flows entirely top-down, that is, from office holders and candidates. In my experience - the Dinkytown McDonald's comes to mind - the negative influence of money is at least a consensual affair, if not sparked in many cases by the avarice of businesses lusting for a partner/patsy inside city government. Which brings us to the more important question: how do we solve this? I disagree with your defeatist sentiment that all the laws in the world won't make people honest. The law against murder doesn't keep our society totally free from murder, but it's still a really good idea. I believe the ethics task force is a step in the right direction. Most people's entrance into unethical behavior is like climbing into a bathtub - toes first, not a cannonball. If we make the grey areas clearer, we may keep our freshmen CMs off the slippery slope entirely. The next step is at least partial public financing of local elections. I'm glad you brought up the PCRP - it would be hugely beneficial (especially to candidates attempting to reach out to the non-monied-interests) to have a Minneapolis version of this astoundingly successful Minnesota program. I realize there are those on this list who decry any expenditure of taxpayer money at all, but the lesson of the last decade is pretty clear: when you compare the amount of money given in campaign contributions and the amount of money allocated to private interests, elected officials tend to be a REALLY good buy. Let's pay for them ourselves. Robin Garwood Seward ___ 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
RE: [Mpls] Campaign finance considered in ethics report?
-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
RE: [Mpls] Campaign finance considered in ethics report?
I was planning to wait to see the debate roll out, but I do want to address one point by Terrell: * 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. Really? Having looked a war chests over the years, I think just the opposite. Most candidates don't plan to be candidates four years in advance; incumbents do. My guess - and it is only that - is that people decide to run at most two years in advance. That gives incumbents a two-year head start on fundraising. Such off-year war chests have scared many a good opponent away. That said, perhaps a compromise is to extend the meaning of election year from calendar year to 12 months prior to the election, for a little longer fundraising time. More importantly, though, banning off-year fundraising (in whatever your off-years are) removes one avenue for private interests to influence public officials. Money for campaign is a necessary evil, but it does distort the body politic - and we should reduce that distortion as much as possible...taking it off the table for 2-3 years would be terrific, in my view. And ethical. 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. Well, this is exactly what the city should do. I've heard the I need to communicate with my constituents, so let me raise campaign funds explanation countless times - but just as often, said constituent services amount to campaign propaganda. And of course, depending on such private funds for public business means they don't have to fall into the city's ethics code. The council's budget for constituent communication - and here, I'm talking notices of meetings, straightforward public info etc. - should be raised if it is too little. This is not a frill; this expenditure is essential in a democracy. I doubt the public would scream if they paid more taxes for what amounts to better service. I still think there should be an Office of Email so that the city can email notices to interested citizens (and, long-term) save budget on mailings. I do this for my neighborhood on a volunteer basis, but it is an appropriate role for taxpayer $$ - not campaign $$. David Brauer King Field ___ 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
