OAKLAND — Oakland's public ethics commission said Thursday night the city should not change its campaign contribution and spending limits in the 2010 election season.
The commission's recommendation — which will be forwarded to a City Council committee later this month — followed a proposal by City Attorney John Russo to double the contribution and spending limits in city elections after Oakland moved to an election format that precludes the need for primaries.
"I think this is a consideration of a serious change to the way we hold elections in Oakland," said Jonathan Stanley, the commission's chair. "I think it warrants additional study and careful thought before we do something like this."
The council's decision on the issue could be particularly important in Oakland's mayoral contest, where former state Sen. Don Perata listed expenditures and outstanding debts topping $100,000 as of Dec. 31 in a race with a $379,000 spending limit. His top competitor, City Councilmember Jean Quan, had spent only $7,108. The election is Nov. 2.
Current city law allows candidates who accept voluntary spending limits for city offices and school board seats to accept donations of up to $700 from individuals and $1,300 from political committees. The amount that can be spent on elections ranges from around $75,000 for school board contests to the $379,000 cap in the mayoral election. Both Perata and Quan agreed to the voluntary spending limits.
Perata said in a Jan. 25 letter to supporters he had "no doubts we'll need those increases to wage our campaign effectively," but indicated Friday he was not overly concerned about what might happen.
"When I started this thing, I started knowing what the rules were," he said. "Whatever the rules are, they apply to everybody."
Quan, meantime, admitted before the commission Thursday she had "a vested interest" in the outcome, but asked them to "please consider the long-term impacts" of doubling the limits — a switch she said would hurt grass roots candidates. Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, who is herself weighing a mayoral bid, said she also opposes doubling the limits.
Russo sent the council a memo earlier this year, saying it made sense to double the limits because, as he put it, two election cycles are being rolled into one with Oakland's switch to instant-runoff voting. He also said candidates may need more money to educate voters on how the new system works. The council's rules committee referred the matter to the ethics commission and asked for a report back.
Opponents of making the change said one of the chief advantages of the election system is that it reduces the amount of money candidates must raise, helping less established candidates run for office. The League of Women Voters, meantime, wrote the public ethics commission saying the issue deserves a "full debate — outside the shadow of an election."
Commissioners by and large agreed. The vote was 3-1, with Commissioner Alex Paul voting no because of a technicality in the way the motion was phrased. He also said he did not support increasing contribution and spending limits.
The council's four-person rules committee is expected to decide March 18 whether to forward the matter to the full council.
Council President Jane Brunner, who is chair of the rules committee, said she can see arguments on both sides of the proposal, but that doubling the limits seemed too high. She said she has to study the issue more before arriving at a final opinion. Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente, who fought the implementation of instant-runoff voting, said he was also examining the issue.
"We're going to look at it," he said. "I haven't read the report or recommendations from the ethics commission, but ultimately the City Council is the one that has the authority to change it or not."
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
