Pleasanton officials are implementing their own version of campaign finance reform in measures that will significantly cut back on “runaway” expenditures while also requiring politicians to spotlight online for public viewing any contributions they receive that total $25 or more.
The measures, along with adoption of the state’s 17-year-old “Ethics Code for Fair Campaigning,” are expected to win the City Council’s approval next Tuesday and be in place by the time campaigning starts for the 2008 municipal election.
The council, at the urging of some candidates and voters concerned about runaway costly campaigns, took on the issue after expenditures for the 2006 council election campaign came in at record highs with total contributions to the six who ran in that election reaching just under a quarter-million-dollars–$224,306 to be exact. Those contributions, which included individual donations, expenditures by political action committees (PACs), fundraising committees, businesses and independent organizations as well as “in kind” contributions, reached an all-time high and were nearly double similar contributions made in the 2004 council campaign.
By comparison, total contributions for candidates in the 2000 municipal race were $91,531, climbing by $10,000 in 2002 to $102,816.
Although contributions–particularly those from PACs and unsolicited candidate promotions by unions, business groups and environmental organizations–don’t translate into direct expenditures by the candidates, themselves, the council determined that it had to curtail campaign the expenses where it could.
Its new measure will be strictly voluntary, although heavily publicized. Candidates who register to run for the council on July 14, the first day filing papers become available, will be asked to sign a pledge not to spend more than $1 per registered voter on their campaign. This year, that’s likely to be about $37,000 based on 36,721 registered voters in Pleasanton as of last Sept. 4.
City Clerk Karen Diaz, who will provide candidates with the voluntary campaign expenditure form, also will post online the names of candidates who have signed the pledge, and those who refused.
The new $37,000-limit, which will adjust as voter registrations change, is just over the $31,456 that Mayor Jennifer Hosterman spent on her 2006 reelection campaign, where she also received $31,348 in direct contributions.
Her opponent, Steve Brozosky, a councilman at the time and now a member of the Pleasanton school board, spent $75,701, a record high amount. His direct contributions totaled $81,586. Even so, Brozosky lost, trailing Hosterman by just 188 votes after a three-week recount by the Alameda County Registrar’s office.
Had it been in place for the November 2006 election, the voluntary limit would have affected only Brozosky, although all candidates have said rising postal costs and the newer, more effective ways of reaching voters by automated telephone messages, print and media advertising and costly full-color brochures are making campaigning, even in Pleasanton, more expensive every year.
The other candidates in that 2006 race–Jerry Thorne and Cheryl Cook-Kallio, who won seats on the council, and Dan Faustina and Brian Arkin, who lost–spent far less.
Cook-Kallio spent $28,838 on her campaign, which she said was necessary to gain name recognition in a city where she lives but has not been politically active. She raised $29,456 from contributors.
Thorne, who had carry-over funds from his 2005 special election contest for the council, which he won, had $31,876 in total contributions, but spent only $14,493 to win reelection.
Arkin spent $15,123 against $14,909 in contributions, and Faustina spent $12,183 against $11,705 in donations.
All of the reported amounts were provided by Diaz based on candidates’ statements filed on Dec. 31, 2006.
Concern over these spiraling costs in faster-rising contributions caused the City Council to take a look at how to control electioneering and election expenses.
In February 2007, the council added to its work plan “Campaign Finance Issues and Options for Change,” and asked City Manager Nelson Fialho and his staff to look for ways to stop runaway campaign costs.
“Right now it’s like the Wild West,” said Councilman Matt Sullivan. “We have independent expenditures going crazy, we have direct contributions going crazy, and unless you’re somehow connected into that you can’t run for City Council. That’s what really concerns me.”
In their year-long study, Fialho and staff studied guidelines in other cities as well as state and federal laws governing what cities like Pleasanton can do or not do with regard to limiting contributions and expenditures. Until now, the only restriction on political candidates is that they must disclose the names and addresses of those who contribute $25 or more to their individual campaigns. These are reported in forms called “460s” four times during a specific election campaign–three after the actual filing of candidacy and one on Dec. 31 after the election. Unspent contributions can be returned or maintained in a campaign war chest for another election, but then additional 460s must be filed periodically.
Although some cities have been successful in limiting direct contributions, federal and state courts have rejected contribution limits by PACs and independent donors and donor organizations that are made without consultation with candidates. The Sierra Club, teachers’ union and others frequently contribute to candidates they favor through print, television and other advertising, by sending out promotional materials to members or even hiring hourly-workers to hang materials on doors or place under front door mats. PG&E spent $10,000 on promotional materials boosting the candidacy of Councilman Jerry Thorne, although he said he knew nothing about the effort in advance and disapproved of it after it happened. The Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce also has contributed thousands of dollars to candidates it favors, and in the last election added more in advertisements supporting Thorne and Cook-Kallio, again without their input.
A similar late-hour mailing by an organization supporting but not affiliated with State Assemblyman Alberto Torrico distributed leaflets criticizing his opponent, Mayor Tom Pico of Pleasanton, in the 20th District 2004 Democratic Party primary race. The material accused Pico of traveling to Dublin, Ireland at local government expense, which organizers later learned was Dublin, Calif., where Pico was on official business. Even so, the fliers were sent just three days before the election, giving Pico no opportunity to correct the message. He lost the primary.
Cities apparently have had better success in curbing contributions. Dublin limits those to $300 from a single individual; Livermore to $250. San Ramon, like Pleasanton, does not limit contributions, but does have a voluntary expenditure limit similar to what the Pleasanton City Council is expected to endorse Tuesday, although San Ramon’s is calculated on the cost of two mailings to each registered voter, which in 2005 totaled $21,544 for each candidate.
The Pleasanton council also has backed away from a $250 campaign contribution limit suggested by city staff, arguing that friends and organizations who want to give more should be allowed to do so. Councilman Thorne said incumbents who already hold council seats are on TV30 community television at each meeting and are frequent guests and speakers at organizational meetings, even at local parades. This puts those who would like to try for a council seat at an advantage, which requires that they raise more contributions to get their names and legislative ideas better known among voters.
As a result, council members, besides imposing a voluntary campaign expenditure agreement based on $1 per each registered voter, also added online digital reporting to the requirements for seeking public office. It has authorized City Manager Fialho to spend an estimated $10,000 for special software that will allow candidates and their campaign treasurers to file contributions and expenditure information online for all to see. This will also require these teams to keyboard their data onto special digitally-readable forms instead of handwriting the information on the 460s and submitting them by hand to Clerk Diaz’ office.
“Sure, people have always been able to come down to the clerk’s office and get copies of the 460s, but how many really have the time to do that?” asked Mayor Hosterman. “With this new procedure, people at home can get a snapshot of where a candidate’s money is coming from and how it’s being spent.”
While the council endorsed the voluntary expenditure limit, it decided not to impose penalties if the pledge is violated. All five on the council, including Hosterman, Matt Sullivan and Cindy McGovern, whose terms expire this year and are likely to seek reelection, favor the expenditure pledge. They agreed that voters will learn quickly if any candidates for council violate the terms of the pledge or its suggested spending limits, which could work against those candidates.
Livermore poised to resist potential reuse of former Dublin prison as ICE facilityJune 14, 2026 6:20 pm