Council Debates Proposal on Campaign Funding

The City Council was still grappling late Tuesday night with a proposed law that--if approved--could usher in a new era of local politics.

The ordinance, drafted by a council-appointed committee of citizens charged with finding a way to lessen the influence of money in local elections, would set a cap on campaign contributions and limit how much can be donated to a candidate in cash, among other restrictions.

By late in the evening, a final vote had not been taken. The crux of the debate was whether the proposed ordinance adequately addressed the appearance of undue influence by major contributors in city elections.

Councilwomen Linda Parks and Elois Zeanah questioned whether the city’s power to audit campaigns provided in the measure could be used as a political tool.

If approved, the new law would take effect in 30 days, in time for the campaign season leading up to the November council election, when three seats are up for grabs.

Council members tussled over two additional proposals by Parks and Zeanah to further tighten campaign purse strings.

Parks asked her colleagues to cap contributions at $100 unless candidates sign on to a voluntary spending limit of $25,000. Limiting spending would allow them to accept contributions of up to $250. Zeanah proposed that the city kick in matching funds to every candidate that voluntarily limits expenditures.

But campaign committee advisor Craig Steele said the matching fund is impossible. Only charter cities can fund elections and Thousand Oaks is not a charter city, he said. He also said variable contribution limits would invite a court challenge.

Councilman Andy Fox also questioned the law’s limits on the use of leftover campaign funds. Under the ordinance, candidates would have to donate that money to the city or give it back to contributors.

“This is pointed directly at me,” Fox said. He is one of the only candidates who has placed excess campaign money in a so-called office-holder account, which he can legally use for public functions.

Parks said she was generally satisfied with the campaign finance recommendations crafted over two months by a diverse citizens panel, which included a strict $250 contribution cap.

“But I want more,” she said before Tuesday’s meeting. “The big areas remaining, I think, are office-holder account and the incentive of $250 contributions in order to voluntarily limit expenditures.”

Before the council considered the campaign finance reform ordinance, it was introduced by Jim Bruno and Dot Engel, who chaired the citizens committee.

The new law’s major components include:

* A strict $250 contribution limit; the state has no contributions limit.

* A fund-raising period that begins six months before election day and ends 90 days after; current state law allows some surplus funds to carry over for future races.

* A ban on anonymous and cash contributions of more than $25; this goes beyond the state’s $100 limit.

* An aggregate limit for local races, which does not exist in current state law. Specifically, no individual could contribute more money than $250 multiplied by the number of open seats plus up to $250 for independent committees. (For example, no one could contribute more than $1,000 this November.)

*

Takenouchi is a Times correspondent. Folmar is a staff writer.