District-Only Change Fails to Cut S.D. Election Costs

Dashing expectations that district-only races would reduce campaign costs, nearly $2 million was spent in last fall’s four San Diego City Council elections, including a record of nearly $430,000 spent by defeated incumbent Ed Struiksma.

Led by the $790,000-plus price tag in the 1st District contest in which Abbe Wolfsheimer narrowly won reelection, campaign expense reports filed this week with the city clerk’s office disproved district election proponents’ oft-stated contention that reducing the scale of local races would likely produce a drop in election costs.

In fact, the amounts spent in this year’s district-only council races were comparable to those spent in the city’s former two-tiered council elections, in which district primaries were followed by citywide runoffs between the top two vote-getters.

Overall, last fall’s four district-only races’ cost $1,963,554--only slightly less than the record $2.2 million spent in the 1987 council campaign. Struiksma’s losing $429,726 campaign set a single-candidate record, eclipsing the $404,846 spent by Councilman Bob Filner in 1987, and Wolfsheimer established another mark by spending $250,000 of her own money in her reelection campaign.

To put those dollar figures in perspective, there were two notable differences between the past two council elections: Finalists in the 1987 races ran citywide, where costs are proportionally higher than within a single district, and they were competing for four open seats, a political rarity that drew 29 candidates. In contrast, incumbents sought reelection in each of last year’s council races, reducing the field to 13 candidates.

In short, the 1989 council races saw fewer candidates spend nearly as much in district-only races as had been spent citywide two years earlier.

“It’s a disappointment to see that much money spent, but it shows how far the development industry and others will go to try to control the council,” said Councilwoman Linda Bernhardt, who defeated Struiksma in the 5th District race despite being outspent by a nearly 2-to-1 margin. “But I think it backfired. When you spend that much in just a district, it’s overkill.”

Indeed, three of the four candidates who spent more than $250,000 last fall--Struiksma, then-3rd District incumbent Gloria McColl and Wolfsheimer challenger Bob Trettin--lost their respective races. The only exception was Wolfsheimer, who spent $349,372--nearly three-fourths of it her own money--in winning a second four-year term.

The lesson that future council candidates should derive from 1989’s experience, Bernhardt argues, is that “money alone can no longer buy council elections--and trying to do so can be counterproductive.”

Disputing that theory, political consultant Jim Johnston, whose firm managed Struiksma’s unsuccessful campaign, attributes Struiksma’s and McColl’s losses more to a strong anti-incumbent sentiment among voters than to a backlash against their heavy spending.

“There was never any sense that we had reached a saturation point--we could have and would have spent even more if we had had it,” Johnston said. “I never subscribed to that argument that district elections would give us cheaper elections. Just reducing the size of the playing field doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to cut costs.”

District election advocates, however, had predicted that lower campaign costs would be one of the major--and desirable--byproducts of San Diego voters’ 1988 approval of Proposition E, the citizens’ initiative that established district-only races.

With races confined to single districts only one-eighth the size of the citywide electorate, the argument went, candidates would not need to rely upon the costly television and radio advertisements needed to compete effectively citywide. Moreover, the district elections’ smaller scale was expected to reduce expenses ranging from mailers--which would be sent to fewer voters--to telephone and postage costs.

“That was the theory,” Bernhardt said, chuckling wryly. “But I guess the election showed that it’s possible to spend as much or more money in a district as citywide. Whether it works is another matter.”

Bernhardt herself, in fact, spent roughly 50% more than she had pledged to under a self-imposed $1-per-voter guideline--a standard that produced a ceiling of about $150,000 for the primary and general election combined. Her total, however, reached $228,823, including $54,700 of her own money--funds that Bernhardt argued were needed to help her keep pace with Struiksma’s $429,726 race.

Combined with the money spent by three unsuccessful primary candidates, the 5th District race’s overall price tag was just under $700,000. In the September primary, former Councilman Floyd Morrow spent $31,736, lawyer Mike Eckmann spent $2,536 and marketing official Bob Switzer spent less than $1,000.

The most expensive council contest was in the 1st District, where former City Hall and county supervisorial aide Bob Trettin narrowly outspent Wolfsheimer, $360,999 to $349,372, in a race that cost more than $790,000 overall. However, with Wolfsheimer’s $250,000 loan repeating her 1985 pattern of largely underwriting her own campaign--four years ago, she spent $229,000 of her own money--there was a much wider gap between the two candidates’ contribution totals.

Indeed, Trettin--who, like Struiksma, drew a large portion of his donations from development interests--actually outraised the incumbent by a more than 3-1 margin, an impressive performance for a challenger. Trettin also spent $35,706 of his own money, while defeated primary candidate Harry Mathis spent $81,423 in his effort.

The cost of the two other council contests was considerably lower, largely because both were decided in the September primary by the victors’ receipt of more than 50% of the vote, the margin needed to avoid a November runoff.

In his 3rd District race against McColl, John Hartley--who spearheaded the push for district elections--spent the least of the four council victors, spending only $90,981, contrasted with McColl’s $254,293 total.

“My election proved that it doesn’t take as much money to run and win as it used to,” Hartley said. “That doesn’t mean that candidates with lots of money won’t continue to spend it.”

Hartley seconded Bernhardt’s suggestion that large campaign expenditures can be damaging to the candidates who make them.

“There’s only so many mailers you can send out,” Hartley said. “After a while, you begin to offend people.”

In the 7th District campaign, Councilwoman Judy McCarty spent $125,351 in her victory over former firefighter Kenneth Key, a long shot who spent only $1,489 in his campaign.