Panel Offers 1st Proposals on Election Financing

In nearly every political crusade, there comes a time when idealistic goals must be sculpted into pragmatic policy.

For a 17-member committee charged with reforming campaign finance in Thousand Oaks elections in the wake of a costly and divisive recall campaign, that day was Monday.

For three hours, the panelists took a 30-point laundry list of perceived abuses in local elections and nipped, snipped and clipped away.

A mandatory cap on contributions? It was tossed because it was unconstitutional. Forbidding money from developers and other special interests? Same problem. Changing cryptic campaign spending forms or booting pushy, carpetbagger signature-gatherers? Sorry, no dice.

There were several other issues the committee members thought could be used to compose a voluntary code of ethics and standards, including concerns about deceptive campaign practices and last-minute “hit pieces.”

By evening’s end, only eight issues remained that could be addressed by a reform ordinance.

The damper on the committee’s activities was judicial rulings that have found free speech protections cover both a resident’s right to write a check to a candidate and a candidate’s right to spend that money.

“The validity of the ordinance depends on identifying a ‘compelling governmental interest’--that is, what purpose are we trying to further?” explained Craig Steele, an election lawyer hired to advise the citizens panel.

“The only controlling governmental interest that has been upheld by the Supreme Court is . . . eliminating corruption or eliminating the appearance of corruption,” he continued.

*

Writing a law that meets that standard will be the focus of a marathon public session scheduled for 4 p.m. next Monday in the board room of the Civic Arts Plaza.

That’s when panelists will home in on the possible: setting contribution limits, curbing loans that candidates make to themselves as “seed money,” tightening rules on contributions from candidates’ spouses, reducing the amount of cash contributions, requiring disclosure of smaller contributions, and setting dates when candidates can begin raising money for a campaign--and when they must stop.

To make sure any new contribution limits stand up to legal challenge, committee Co-Chairman Jim Bruno requested an analysis of contributions in recent elections.

Within the next week or two, the city clerk and her staff will tally how many contributions made to winning candidates in the last two regular elections were less than $250, between $250 and $500, between $500 and $1,000, between $1,000 and $5,000, and more than $5,000.

“I think we would all benefit from having that breakdown,” said Bruno, a financial planner.

Another option that may be weighed is establishing some amount of public financing for City Council campaigns.

“If the city gives X amount to each candidate . . . you get pretty clean government at a low cost,” said panel member Mitch Rheingold, a stockbroker. “To me, it really is the cleanest and simplest way to go.”

*

The committee has a mid-May deadline for submitting a proposed ordinance and code of ethics to the Thousand Oaks City Council, which has the ultimate decision-making authority.

Now, Thousand Oaks has no laws governing campaign spending in local elections.

Concern about the issue came to a head after last fall’s failed recall attempt against Councilwoman Elois Zeanah, in which more than $470,000 was spent by both sides--including $390,000 that came from a single donor seeking her ouster.