Public financing a major player in mayor's race
John Coté, Chronicle Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle November 13, 2011 04:00 AM
Copyright San Francisco Chronicle. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ![]()
Photo by Lance Iversen / The Chronicle
San Francisco's new elected District Attorney George Gascon held a press conference with his wife Fabiola Kramsky Gascon at City Hall after being declared the winner Thursday November 10, 2011
San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting received about $301 in taxpayer money for every first-place vote he got in the city's first mayoral contest with public financing.
Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman spent about $39 per vote when she paid a record $160 million - the vast majority of it her own money - in her failed bid for governor in 2010.
While Whitman got 41 percent of the vote, Ting got less than 1 percent in the first round, a showing that has helped fuel the debate over San Francisco's public financing program in the postmortem of the 2011 mayor's race.
It was the city's first competitive mayoral contest that combined public financing and ranked-choice voting, where voters pick their top three candidates.
Some observers say that combination - plus the late entry of appointed Mayor Ed Lee after he pledged not to run - created a perfect storm for a muddled, nasty and expensive contest that attracted little voter attention.
More than $4.6 million in taxpayer money was spent on campaigns in a race that had 16 candidates on the ballot, low turnout and weeks of stinging attacks, many from independent committees funded by union and business interests not covered by the city's strict campaign finance rules.
Lee, who didn't apply for public financing, declared victory with more first-place votes than the runner-up, Supervisor John Avalos, had in first-, second- and third-choice votes combined.
"This was an anomalous election," said Alex Clemens, a consultant and lobbyist with longtime ties to City Hall. "I don't think you're going to see 10 or 11 well-known officeholders and former officeholders fighting it out for this race four or eight years from now, mostly because they're going to look back at 2011 and go,
'Wow, everybody got their ass kicked.' "
"That was an unexpected outcome," said John St. Croix, director of the city's Ethics Commission, which oversees campaign finance. "We are obviously going to have to rewrite the public financing program."
The program was designed to level the playing field for grassroots candidates and lessen the influence of monied interests.
"It has given people who have absolutely no chance of winning the ability to stay on the ballot while doing nothing to increase their chance of winning," said Supervisor Sean Elsbernd.
No candidate receiving public financing, which has been used in supervisor races since 2002, has ever dropped out of a race, St. Croix said.
"I think we would be better served as a city if many of these candidates did not have a gigantic financial dagger hanging over their heads that force them to stay in the race until the end, confusing us, making the race that much more nasty and splitting the vote that many more ways," Clemens said.
Political consultant David Latterman, who worked on Board of Supervisors President David Chiu's mayoral campaign, noted, though, that candidates could have spent more wisely.
"Nobody told them to spend boatloads of money on consultants," Latterman said at a postelection forum at the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association.
"Would I have liked to have more votes? Yeah, about 44,000 more," said Ting, who received the lowest amount of public financing of any candidate at $293,000.
Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman spent about $39 per vote when she paid a record $160 million - the vast majority of it her own money - in her failed bid for governor in 2010.
While Whitman got 41 percent of the vote, Ting got less than 1 percent in the first round, a showing that has helped fuel the debate over San Francisco's public financing program in the postmortem of the 2011 mayor's race.
It was the city's first competitive mayoral contest that combined public financing and ranked-choice voting, where voters pick their top three candidates.
Some observers say that combination - plus the late entry of appointed Mayor Ed Lee after he pledged not to run - created a perfect storm for a muddled, nasty and expensive contest that attracted little voter attention.
More than $4.6 million in taxpayer money was spent on campaigns in a race that had 16 candidates on the ballot, low turnout and weeks of stinging attacks, many from independent committees funded by union and business interests not covered by the city's strict campaign finance rules.
Lee, who didn't apply for public financing, declared victory with more first-place votes than the runner-up, Supervisor John Avalos, had in first-, second- and third-choice votes combined.
"This was an anomalous election," said Alex Clemens, a consultant and lobbyist with longtime ties to City Hall. "I don't think you're going to see 10 or 11 well-known officeholders and former officeholders fighting it out for this race four or eight years from now, mostly because they're going to look back at 2011 and go,
'Wow, everybody got their ass kicked.' "
'Zombie candidates'
Clemens and others have pointed to public financing as one area that should be modified, particularly the phenomenon observers call "zombie candidates," where people continue running without a chance of winning because they must pay back all public financing if they drop out."That was an unexpected outcome," said John St. Croix, director of the city's Ethics Commission, which oversees campaign finance. "We are obviously going to have to rewrite the public financing program."
The program was designed to level the playing field for grassroots candidates and lessen the influence of monied interests.
4-to-1 match for funds
Under the city's current rules, candidates receive public matching funds after they reach fundraising benchmarks, the most lucrative being a 4-to-1 match for every dollar above $25,000 raised from a city resident. Candidates could top out at $900,000 in public money in this race. Only one of the nine candidates who qualified for public financing has so far received more than $700,000, but eight have received more than $400,000 apiece."It has given people who have absolutely no chance of winning the ability to stay on the ballot while doing nothing to increase their chance of winning," said Supervisor Sean Elsbernd.
No candidate receiving public financing, which has been used in supervisor races since 2002, has ever dropped out of a race, St. Croix said.
"I think we would be better served as a city if many of these candidates did not have a gigantic financial dagger hanging over their heads that force them to stay in the race until the end, confusing us, making the race that much more nasty and splitting the vote that many more ways," Clemens said.
Political consultant David Latterman, who worked on Board of Supervisors President David Chiu's mayoral campaign, noted, though, that candidates could have spent more wisely.
"Nobody told them to spend boatloads of money on consultants," Latterman said at a postelection forum at the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association.
Defending public financing
Low-finishing mayoral contenders dismissed the notion there were "zombies," saying they were working hard for votes."Would I have liked to have more votes? Yeah, about 44,000 more," said Ting, who received the lowest amount of public financing of any candidate at $293,000.
Ting pointed to 10 Muni town halls he held, more than 100,000 visits in a month to his campaign-funded Reset San Francisco website, and the $1,000 reward he paid from campaign money for a smart-phone application to send an alert if residents are parked in a tow zone.
"We got it done in what, six weeks? The city would probably take six years," he said of the app.
"I think this is exactly what taxpayer dollars should be going to," Ting said. "They shouldn't be going to political hit pieces."
Rees' high-profile campaign
It also may be difficult to describe venture capitalist Joanna Rees as a "zombie." Even though the political newcomer got about $167 in tax dollars per first-place vote, she was active on the campaign trail, participated in forums that higher-profile candidates skipped, and campaigned the day after a full hysterectomy.Still, it translated into less than 2 percent of the vote with about 8,000 votes to be counted.
Other candidates, including Chiu, who finished fourth, said public financing is needed but should be tweaked. About $2.7 million has been spent in private money on Lee's behalf in the race, a figure that could rise. Those who received public financing had a spending cap of almost $1.5 million but were allowed to raise more to try to keep pace with Lee.
"Given the millions of dollars spent by candidates and independent expenditures, I'm still convinced of the need for public financing," Chiu said.
Elsbernd, who has called for ranked-choice voting to be scrapped, said "there's some merit" to public financing "if done right."
His suggested changes including decreasing the overall payout, reducing the 4-to-1 matching ratio, giving "zombie candidates" a way to exit, and requiring "consistent markers of qualification" throughout the campaign, such as signature gathering or polls, to qualify for more money.
Some of Elsbernd's friends joked that he should've run for mayor so they could have donated to his campaign and then made money off the public matching to prove a point.
"It's comparable to a Ponzi scheme in that you could do something like that," Elsbernd said.
Discussing changes
The Ethics Commission has already scheduled two public meetings, the first on Wednesday, to discuss changes to the program.Charles Marsteller, the former head of Common Cause in San Francisco who pushed officials to adopt public financing, welcomed modifications while saying the system itself was indispensable.
"We have to find ways to break the link between politics and money," Marsteller said. "Money is what really is running the place. How do you compete with money except with money?"
A costly race
Voters initially approved public financing in supervisor races in 2000. At the time, proponents said the cost would not top $2 per resident.Supervisor races have complied with that, with last year's almost $1.5 million price tag amounting to less than $1.90 per resident. The Board of Supervisors voted to extend the program to the mayor's race in 2006. Public spending this year on mayoral campaigns cost about $5.70 per resident.
Supporters say that's a small price to pay to limit the influence of moneyed interests.
This year's election costs are still being tabulated, but they generally run about $3.5 million, Elections Department head John Arntz said. Adding at least $4.6 million in public financing on top of that could make this the most expensive city election ever, he said.
"You add $4 million to our costs, that's a big ship going through the channel," Arntz said. "It would be hard to top that."
The cost of public financing
Nine of the 16 candidates who ran for mayor accepted public financing, which cost taxpayers $4.6 million. Here's a look at the breakdown by votes.| Candidate | Finish | Public financing | Number of first-place votes* | Taxpayer cost per first-place vote* |
| Phil Ting | 12 | $293,128 | 973 | $301.26 |
| Joanna Rees | 10 | $491,405 | 2,928 | $167.83 |
| Bevan Dufty | 7 | $682,108 | 8,746 | $77.99 |
| Michela Alioto-Pier | 9 | $487,950 | 6,377 | $76.52 |
| Tony Hall | 8 | $410,056 | 6,661 | $61.56 |
| Leland Yee | 5 | $515,869 | 13,903 | $37.10 |
| David Chiu | 4 | $562,641 | 17,093 | $32.92 |
| Dennis Herrera | 3 | $711,931 | 20,921 | $34.03 |
| John Avalos | 2 | $450,639 | 34,513 | $13.06 |
Sources: San Francisco Department of Elections, San Francisco Ethics Commission
No comments:
Post a Comment