Council Studies Election Financing

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday inched closer to a controversial proposal to use taxpayer funds to fully finance municipal election campaigns, although some council members balked at the hefty price tag.

Despite some members’ misgivings about spending more taxpayer money for campaigns, the council voted unanimously to have its staff draft a measure that could be placed on the March ballot. The measure would call for increasing public financing of campaigns from the current $2 million a year to $9 million or more. Council members directed the city attorney and chief legislative analyst to draft a “detailed full public financing program” for the council to consider putting on the ballot. The panel also asked for a report on possible sources of funds other than the general fund, but including an increase in the property tax.

Under a proposal endorsed by the city Ethics Commission, candidates who reach a low threshold for local fundraising would have the city finance the remainder of their campaign, up to a uniform limit. In a council race, for example, candidates who raise 500 donations of $5 each from individuals living in their district would qualify to have the rest of their campaigns publicly financed.

The draft proposal, which would involve a city charter change and require voter approval, will be submitted to the city’s advisory neighborhood councils before it returns in the fall for a City Council vote on whether to place it before voters. The council also may propose a special tax, which would require two-thirds voter approval, to pay for the campaign finance program. Currently, the city matches some campaign contributions, providing a fraction of the funding for campaigns by candidates who agree to spending limits.

Council members Wendy Greuel, Eric Garcetti and Bill Rosendahl said the voters should be allowed to decide whether they want to pay more for more competitive elections in which special interests presumably would have a smaller role.

“We believe very strongly that we need to help restore the public trust in government and help make our elections much more competitive,” Greuel said.

However, the proposal appears to face an uphill battle to get the eight council votes needed to put it on the ballot.

Five of the 15 council members raised questions Wednesday about using taxpayer dollars to finance campaigns when the city is struggling to provide policing and other essential city services.

Councilman Herb Wesson said he voted Wednesday in favor of drafting a plan as “a courtesy” but will not support asking voters to approve any “clean money” plan that would divert scarce tax dollars from essential city services.

“I resent the phrase ‘clean’ because that is suggesting that we are not,” Wesson said. “I can tell you what the people in my district want. They want clean streets, they want clean parks and they want clean communities.”

The council voted Wednesday to change the name of the program from “clean money” to “full public financing,” even as some members signaled that they probably would not vote to put anything on the ballot.

Councilman Jack Weiss also raised objections.

“It’s a fivefold increase in the amount of money that taxpayers in this city would have to spend for all of those pieces of political mail that people routinely throw out the minute they get them because [of] how scurrilous and annoying and deceptive they tend to be,” Weiss said.

But supporters countered that the measure was necessary, and Rosendahl said he would prefer public financing over the current term-limits law as a way to make races more competitive.