No problem with campaign finances here No problem with campaign finances here (September 02, 2005)

With campaign costs and contributions rising to unprecedented levels, the Pleasanton City Council considered briefly last week a plea by Councilman Steve Brozosky to rein in big-money donations and major outside contributions by political action committees and others to keep local elections reasonably inexpensive and financially feasible for anyone who wants to seek public office. He is concerned that contributions to the last campaigns of former Mayor Tom Pico and Jennifer Hosterman topped $30,000, and that retired businessman Jerry Thorne took in more than $50,000 to win the special election last June that put him on the council - all records highs at the time. Although he earned little more than lip service by the four others on the council, who voted against his proposal to look at what other communities are doing to reform campaign financing, Brozosky may have another chance to seek their support after City Atty. Michael Roush reports back on how state laws affect local campaigns and funding.

But while $50,000, or even $30,000, sounds like a lot of money for a Pleasanton City Council election, campaigns in Fremont and other cities often top $100,000. Compare that to the $8,000 Brozosky spent to win his council seat in 2002, an amount he'd like to stick with to some degree if he seeks a second term next year or even decided to vie for the mayor's post. He's in good company. Councilman Matt Sullivan spent only $8,000 to win his seat on the council last November. Planning Commissioner Brian Arkin, who finished just 425 votes behind Thorne in last June's race, spent just $10,000. Like Brozosky, they credit their success to vigorous campaigning at Farmers Market, supermarkets and at major intersections, and by walking the precincts every weekend before Election Day. While money helps, especially in producing campaign literature that identifies a candidate's position on key local issues, it doesn't necessarily buy an election, at least not in Pleasanton.

Besides, campaign financing reforms, as carefully drafted and widely supported as they have been at state and national levels, don't always work as intended. At the local level, where cities have tried to cap individual contributions at an arbitrary $500 or less, the limits tend to give incumbents an unfair advantage when running for re-election. Measure Q, which voters approved in the Sacramento County city of Galt three years ago, limits contributions to both candidates and local initiatives to $100, with violators facing a $500 fine or as much as six months in prison. Although most contributions in Pleasanton races are $100 or less, the Galt measure would penalize even family members who want to give more to their candidate without penalizing an organization like the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce whose political action committee provided Thorne with $7,000 in services and contributions, or PG&E which donated $10,000 for a campaign mailer supporting Thorne in the closing days of the June election, a legally independent expenditure that Thorne and his campaign team knew nothing about until the mailer was delivered.

We're glad to see the City Council holding back on any Galt-like campaign reforms. We have adequate disclosure laws in place with public postings always available from the City Clerk. With Pleasanton's new and improved Web site, there could even be a special listing created for next year's campaign that the public could access on a daily basis to see who's contributing and how much to the candidates. That would be public disclosure at its best.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.