The campaign finance reform measure that won’t
Check out John Osborn’s very good article on the other important vote scheduled for tonight’s Eureka City Council meeting — Eureka’s Stab at CF Reform Could Kill:
[T]he ordinance falls short of any real meaningful reform and, rather, will only empower candidates who are a part of one large and influential network of financiers in the city while starving others in the process. If passed, it could dramatically alter the political landscape of future elections and, considering that three council seats are up for grabs, along with the Mayor’s chair, the timing of this ordinance is also interesting.
Osborn breaks down donations from the 2004, 2006, and 2008 election cycles to show how candidates generally supported by the “have-nots” will be screwed out of the system if the ballot measure — which is supported by the three Councilmembers who get their money from the “have-mores” — is passed.
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
 | Anonymous on Eureka Police lose big in Mart… |
| Anonymous on A Performance Review for Phil… |
| i can T stop thinkin… on BLIND ITEM | |
| Anonymous on Hank Larrabee – Humboldt Count… |
| Anonymous on Hank Larrabee – Humboldt Count… |
 | Anum08 on Another “Golden rule… |
 | Adobe crack on Another “Golden rule… |
Top Posts & Pages
The Humboldt Herald 
Here are a couple points that John missed:
1) The current system is broken and only getting worse. The first time I ran for council, people were stunned that Cherie Arkley would spend over $50,000 running for Mayor. 4 years later when I ran for re-election, my opponent spent $50,000 and nobody blinked twice. Unless something is done, the cost of running for office will continue to go up – with no end in sight.
2) The more money required to run, the more powerful people with money become. If you’re not careful, you might actually see a situation where the people with money get to decide who can – and can’t – run for office.
3) It’s not true that the “Pierson clique” is smaller or poorer than the “Movers and Shakers”. One of the largest non-profit fundraising campaigns in Humboldt’s history was the Eureka Planned Parenthood facility – over 4 million dollars raised. Plus, most Eureka (and County) voters are registered democrats. The fact that candidates from the left have not raised money from a variety of donors in the past doesn’t mean that they CAN’T. There is plenty of potential support to tap.
4) Campaign caps work. Arcata elections don’t have all of the problems we have in Eureka. Why? Campaign caps work. Caps have worked in other cities, too. These cities still have heated political battles and important elections and opposing cliques at work and all the rest – but money isn’t a major factor.
Personally, I prefer the $250 cap. We’ll see what happens tonight.
dude, you’re going to get branded a Arcata-Lover with that kind of talk. Better take it back quick or kiss public life goodbye.
Actually Jeff, I never said the “Pierson Clique” was poorer or smaller. What I said is that there are a small number of deep-pocketed donors that give to those candidates, including William Pierson, while there are also a large number of small donors.
Second, in Arcata the contribution caps don’t necessarily work. Most election cycles there run in the several thousand range, but in 2006 you had a race where Dave Merserve raised $5,790 and Mike Winkler $5,769 versus Alex Stillman who raised about $12,000. That’s significant considering Arcata. The caps didn’t lower the amount of money in elections there and benefited individuals who have a large network of donors.
As for Planned Parenthood, as a non-profit they rely not only on donations but grants, so it’s moot to compare it with election campaigns.
It’s good that the city is trying to tackle the ridiculous amount of money in elections, but the way you guys are going about it, as shown in the numbers, will clearly benefit one group of candidates with more lucrative funding streams than others.
WTF does Planned Parenthood’s fund raising have to do with campaign finance reform and which “clique” has the most money to donate?
Ward elections would fix this. Candidates would not need expensive media – they could see people door-to-door and at block parties.
Jeff, we only need
1. Ward Elections
2. Campaign Expense limits
The rest of your talk just isn’t necessary.
Call me asshole but I would rather have wealthy, well funded leaders than poor, clock watchers on the take.
It’t not a job, it’s public service. Servicing those who have it. Those who don’t should get some.
You’re an asshole, CheeseDick.
Cheesey, in his own colorful way, puts it correctly.
We want the best & brightest people possible on the city council. Best & brightest usually means more succesfull. Succesfull people usually know other successfull people.
The problem with money in political campaigns is not how much is raised, but in who gives it. If the $50,000 came from 100 people giving $500 each, well that just indicates the depth of support that candidate has. If the $50,000 came from three large doners, that indicates those donors are buying the candidate & will expect something in return later.
If a candidate, like Jeff Leonard for example, can only raise $10,000 then it shows a lack of community support. And indeed, Jeff barely got 20% of the vote.
Success is not a dirty word. I know most of the people on the “Movers & Shakers” list in the article. They truely are some of the best & brightest in Eureka. Eureka would be better off to remove all six people on the council now & replace them with any six on that list.
If a candidate with a long history of good works in the community has a lot of individuals supporting him or her, why is that a bad thing? I’d suggest that if a homeless college student wants to run for city council, he’d do well to establish a positive reputation in the community first so that he has supporters.
Unless you’re proposing fully-publicly-funded elections, then you don’t have much of a point. Arcata’s caps perform the job they were designed to do. They are not designed to stop popular candidates from having a big campaign chest. They are designed to limit influence from major donors, and they do that very well.
you want finance reform that matters? You need to go back to pre- Reagan rules. Otherwise, everybody’s daughters, sons, dogs and cats will donate whether they like it or not. Don’t get me started on corporate interests. What’s with you Jeff, don’t you want to live in a real democracy?
Not saying it’s a bad thing, just showing that caps don’t always limit the money in elections, especially if you have a network of donors who ante up small amounts like in the case of the Arcata races.
Best, brightest, successful, etc… – No wonder America is fracked up!
Do you mean sophisticated chumps H.F. who, for many, actually b.s.ed, deceived, grafted or stole from others to make their greedy such dreams (err success) come true; and please, lest not leave out the application processes that are so often manipulated – manipulated to help the wealthier or minionated in-clubbers who will do whatever just to believe they are better so long as they stroke a department’s stiff, under-belly desires; or, manipulated to punish the less wealthy knowing that they have far less resources to fight the battle than that of a printing press government who will drain tax dollars to politically rape its own citizens locally.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
2 step Easy solution –
#1. No money accepted, period!
#2. Cap on money spent is equal to campaign filing fees/doc. fees, in lieu signature fees, etc.
Your Welcome
JL
I think HF means people who give a lot to this community. They are the movers and shakers who get things done. Annoying or on the other side of your political world, they make it happen. I avoid them sometimes, but without them, where would we be? They are the biggest fundraisers and initiators, and the ones who give lots of cash. Not to say others don’t give in other ways, but sometimes cash is what is needed.
So many people that give a lot are doing so in forms other than money or that which is not associated with attentions and popularisms through pandering politics.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Jeffrey Lytle, there is a reason why you only received 87 votes last week & lack of money wasn’t it.
Did Lytle even raise any money? 87 votes is good for raising $0.
I think the Hunchman is well-meaning, but he sure could use a little help with his communications skills.
Tip #1, Using big, cumbersome words is not always better, in fact it’s often worse.
Tip #2 Using bigger words incorrectly, or in a grammatically challenging fashion, is even worse.
Tip #3 Try reading your comments out loud before posting — if it sounds like “word salad,” go back to the drawing board.
Irony is wasted on the Anonymous-Poster.