COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, June 1, 2000 2:30 p.m. - - - Campaign Finance Reform Legislation: Bill No. 000356 Bill No. 000357 Res. No. 000380 (Full text of above attached hereto.) - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 6/1/00 LAW & GOV'T. - FINANCE CAMPAIGN REFORM I N D E X H. Fernandez, Former Mayoral Candidate . . . . 9 * Katherine Rutherford, National Civic League 19 * B. Dietrich, Phil. League of Women Voters 29 * M. Petro, Committee for Economic Development 34 * R. Avila, L.A. City Ethics Committee . . . . 45 * N. Gordon, NYC Campaign Finance Board. . . . 62 * M. Goldman, Americans for Democratic Action 90 * Ed Schwartz, Inst. For Study of Civic Values 96 * Angus Love, National Lawyers Guild . . . . . 109 * D. Kulp, Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club 114 Kathy Miller, President, Philadelphia NOW. . . 118 * Darlene Cradle, Philadelphia ACORN . . . . . 120 * Larry Frankel, Executive Director, PA ACLU 131 * Glenn Moramarco, Brennan Center. . . . . . . 157 * R. Wingert, B. Kauffman, Common Cause. . . . 163 Inja Coates, Cable Access. . . . . . . . . . . 174 Phyllis Gilbert, Sierra Club . . . . . . . . . 179 * L. Townsend, Citizens for Consumer Justice 180 * David Masur, Penn PIRG . . . . . . . . . . . 187 C. Juntikka, NYC Bar Association . . . . . . . 198 (* Also provided handout(s) or written testimony.) Other Attached Written Testimony By: Dennis Pollard Jerome Kohlberg, Lai Har Cheung 3 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 P R O C E E D I N G S
To all members of the Law and Government Committee, the committee is about to begin the hearings, which are scheduled for 2 o'clock this afternoon. - - -
Councilman Nutter, Councilman Goode, Councilman Rizzo, you're all requested to come to the chambers so that we could get started with the scheduled 2 o'clock hearing. Councilman Mariano is here, Councilman Ortiz is present, I'm Councilman Cohen, and I'm here. - - -
We're sorry for the delay but Councilmembers are recovering from the lunch they had in the Mayor's office. Now I'll call the Council President, who's agreed to be the fifth member. City Council is now in session for the purpose of hold a public hearing and a public meeting on Bill No.'s 356 and 357, and Resolution 23 No. 380. A quorum of the Law and Government Committee is present. At my extreme left is 4 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Councilman Rizzo, to my immediate left is Councilman Mariano, to the far right is Councilman Ortiz -- no one would ever accuse him of being there. And to my immediate right Council President Verna, and myself, David Cohen. The committee is now in session, a quorum hasn't been established. And I'm going to ask Councilman Ortiz, who is one of the two principal sponsors of the bill, to make a short statement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Campaign finance reform is something that usually is discussed at the national level, but as Mr. Kohlberg, a corporate leader of this country said in a letter to this committee, change has to come at the local level so that it can germinate, grow and impact and give courage to those that in Washington that are afraid to end the pay-for-play situation. Tragically enough, in Philadelphia, pay-for-play has become a part of the political lexicon, it has become a part of our culture. We no longer find it unreasonable when people go and 5 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 ask and request, and almost demand, fund-raisers of 5, 10, 25,000 dollars a pop per person. We are no longer surprised when a District Council race can cost up to three-quarters of a million dollars. We are no longer surprised when the municipality and the County of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania holds the most expensive municipal election in history. People can become candidates without having any public policy, background or philosophy or vision. We have seen that in our past primary for mayor, where persons became viable candidates, not because of their public policy visions, not because of what they offered as a candidate in terms of bringing the City into the 21st century, but because a few very well-to-do individuals got together and decided to raise a huge amount of money to make candidates viable. Money is becoming the pervasive undermining force of the democracy in the United States. We spend more money in political campaigns, and the sum total of voters coming out is less and less every year. In the last election that we've had this year, candidates for senator 6 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 of the United States running, other candidates, two very important offices at the State level, and we get 16 percent turnout. But money was spent in bundles. We need to grab hold of that so that the days of pay-for-play can end, so that the politicians who want and people who want to serve in government and want to enter politics can have a level playing field. So that what will count will be not how much money you have in your campaign account, but what you have in your mind, your heart, and the vision that you want to bring to the people of the city. It should start here in Philadelphia, it should start here. Other cities have done it. New York has big political machines and stronger than we have. L.A. has done it and they're bigger. Over 75 cities across the nation have said we have to take the money out of the public discourse and bring back government to the people. Government has gone from the people. And don't kid yourself that every time there's a TIF, that there's a development, that there's something going on, that those people that sit at 7 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 that table in front of City Council are usually individuals that have contributed great gobs of money to political races. And those are not the issues upon which we should decide public policy. We have, and I hope that we have, the courage in this Council to be able to move forward, to have the vision that we will no longer tolerate money controlling elections, but let people and issues be the controlling factor in electing people to public office and public service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilman Ortiz. Like all things in life, campaign finance is a complicated question, because what Councilman Ortiz said is certainly, in my judgment, valid and true in 95, maybe 99 percent of the cases. I would like campaign reform to get rid of the embarrassment I always face. I'm always very fearful that the press will go and examine my return sheets because I would be embarrassed at the report of how little I raised and how little I spend. I'm always at the very 8 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 bottom of the list and I dread looking up and reading the reports of the press. But I have to tell you that I suspect if somebody tried to raise some of the sums of money that Councilman Ortiz told us about, I would be very concerned, because money and the big bundles that we're beginning to get used to -- imagine $27 million in the mayoral race in Philadelphia was spent -- you say it was twice that?
Yeah, $27 million is outrageous. Because one thing we know, a good businessman -- and much of the money, maybe almost most of it, comes from large business groups, and good businessmen never pay without being sure that they get a return. We couch that return politely in the media in terms of access. What access means differs in different people's minds. Some people maybe only want to talk to a legislator, others say, We expect results. Everybody says businesses are bottom- line breeders, that it's the bottom line that counts and the bottom line is results. That's 9 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 kind of terrifying, because results politically mean results in support of the interests represented by the money-givers. And politics should never be that. And so I think we're embarking are here in Philadelphia is a very important matter, particularly when we've seen that the lack of legislation permits huge sums of money to influence outcomes. The first panel -- why don't you both stay at the table, but because there are time restraints -- and we're delighted she's here, she's a former colleague, and we'll introduce her as "Councilwoman Happy Fernandez." She was a strong candidate for mayor of the City in the last election. She did not get those huge contributions represented by the $27 million represented that I spoke about. She is now president of the Moore College of Art. We're happy to welcome you back, Happy, to your original home. City Council -- that is not counting the Temple professorship before. Thank you.
It's great to be here. 10 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 This seat is maybe a little higher than my seat over here, but it's great to be here, particularly to testify on this campaign finance reform bill. And let me begin by complimenting Councilman Ortiz, and I think Councilman Kenney was a lead sponsor --
-- along with others who have signed on 'cause I think it is an excellent bill. Again, Councilman Ortiz, I think it's much improved over the one that was in last session where, as you recall, I felt couldn't put my name to it 'cause I thought it needed to be strengthened, and I think you've done that with this bill. My first reaction to campaign finance reform finance bills is, no bill is better than a bad bill. But I am here today to say I think this is a very well-constructed bill. There may need to be a few amendments, but I think it has many of the elements in it that's strong enough and comprehensive enough to try to level the playing field so that people can again believe in democracy and have greater trust and respect for 11 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 their elected officials because they feel they have a chance to run for office and that it's not totally controlled by people who can make sometimes obscene contributions to people who are running. So the thrust of your bill, the basic grounds of it, I think, are excellent. And so I do not feel that this is a bad bill; I think this is a good bill and should be supported. I'm sure, through these hearings, that you will probably agree to make some small changes and amendments?
And I'd be glad to talk with you as you consider those amendments. But overall, I just had a few points to make, and that would be, I think the limits you're trying to set are reasonable. But, as you know, I think you really need to look at all of those loopholes where people use soft money at the national level, or the other big loophole is people who are multimillionaires and who are buying elections and feel they don't need to abide 12 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 by campaign finance reform laws. I think we have that happening at the federal presidential level, and we're all very aware of what's happening over in New Jersey right now. And I think there is a backlash among the citizens. They really don't like the idea that people can buy their way into public office. So I think it's very important to look at all of the little details in this bill to try to close as many of those loopholes as you can. And that would lead to the strength of your proposed independent campaign finance board. I would like to suggest that instead of having those five members appointed only by elected officials, I would suggest that you have three to four other citizens who are respected in the community, perceived as independent, and could be nominated by some of the citywide respected civic business labor groups in the City, 'cause I think that, again, would add to hopefully the reality, but at least the perception, that this campaign finance -- or this independent campaign finance board really is there looking out for the interest of the citizens and would have the clout it needs 13 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 to keep people in line. 'Cause I think the biggest danger with this bill is that if it's drawn too tightly, there will be people who will want to run for office outside of these rules and use their fortunes or their friends' fortunes to get them in. So I think having even more clout and the perception of even more independence by that independent campaign finance board is good. Which leads to the other issue. I was interested in the clause in the proposed bill that says that there would be at least two televised debates by the candidates running for various offices and that you would try to attract media attention to that. One of the big issues you'll face is how to get sufficient media attention for any of the candidates. And then if there are people running outside of the framework you've proposed, who are not going to abide by these rules, how do you have enough media attention to the candidates who want to play by these rules. So that, again, you can't have someone going around and being able to buy so much media that drowns out or obscures the real issues. 14 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 So, again, I think that independent board and other civic and community groups would have to be very, very vigilant, do all they can to get the major television and radio stations and the print media to give extensive coverage to the various candidates at the various levels, even if they aren't paying some of these incredible rates that you have to pay to get on television. Because, as you know, that is the biggest part of a budget, particularly for anyone who's running for mayor, is the TV costs, which are the single largest item in most people's budgets. The next item that I wanted to bring up is what I would perceive as further discrimination against or punishment of people who are already elected officials within the City of Philadelphia. And, again, having been one and as a person who needed to resign my Council office in order to run for mayor, while there are people coming from other sectors who could be doing all they wanted for as long as they wanted, or if they had independent incomes, could resign and say, you know, I don't need to work at all, I'll just campaign steadily for two years.
15 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 So I think the clause you have here that says that someone who is currently an elected official, not only according to the City Charter has to resign in order to run for anything else, but also could not use any of the funds that might be in their campaign funds which, under your bill, would be much more limited anyway, that those could not be used. I think that's further punishment and I think you ought to take a second look at that. So those were my major issues. I think there's a lot of other little details. I would frankly like to hear the debate about your attempts to limit contributions of people who are doing business with the City. I think that's the area where you would find people still doing it through wives or children or dogs or something in order to make sure the politicians perceived that their money had helped get them elected and were, therefore, still buying access. I understand what you're trying to do, but I think that needs some pretty serious debate and examination.
Well, the good thing about it is that we have people that are already 16 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 experienced in this public financing of political elections -- L.A. and New York and other individuals who are looked into those aspects that you're looking at and that you have mentioned, and that we will be looking very strongly as to how those other boards have managed to monitor and police those instances.
And I think we'll hear from L.A. and probably New York, and we'll have some very interesting thought and comments as to how four elections now, four election cycles have gone through in L.A., and candidates for city council and mayor have run under these guidelines and have adhered to them. So it's -- we will get the history and the knowledge to be able to hopefully close all of those loopholes.
So my bottom line is, I think this is a well constructed bill, and after the hearings and the various kinds of amendments, I'd be glad to talk with you again, but I want to compliment you on taking on this very important issue. 17 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2
You know, because you were one of the candidates that ran for mayor and that if you go back -- and I would love to see a political historian do this, but if you go back to the reporting in the print media or the TV and other aspects in terms of that election, every time that they reported on individuals that were credible or viable, they mentioned only a few because they had money. And then those individuals that were behind in the money chase, in the money aspect of getting it together and so on -- you and Dwight and others -- were really relegated to second-tier candidates, not because of not having experience, not because of having lack of political vision, not because you could not handle the job and be able to do the job, but the only reason that it was second-tier was because of the level of money that each one of those individuals had.
But that also -- you know, I hope some of the reporters would take a look at what that does. But you're right, I raised over a million and a half dollars which you think would be adequate for a mayor's race, but in 18 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 this particular race, that was a modest amount. But, again, as you know and a number of people have said, the kind of time it takes to raise that amount of money from a broad base of people is a very time-consuming issue, and that was actually one of the things I found most distressing about running for mayor was all the time it took to be raising money, when I would much prefer to be out talking with people at all the meetings and -- which we did anyway, but that's also what adds to the stress of a mayor's race.
We very much appreciate your working through your schedule to be with us here today. Thank you. Great. The next speakers are going to be what was considered panel number one before: Katherine Rutherford of the National Civic League, and Barbara Dietrich, President of the League of Women Voters of Philadelphia. 19 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 We welcome you both. Please identify yourself for the record first and then proceed with your testimony.
Okay. My name is Katherine Rutherford, and I'm the Assistant Director for the New Politics Program at the National Civic League. The National Civic League is a 106-year-old good-government organization that held its first meeting here in Philadelphia. That meeting was convened by such turn-of-the-century progressives as Teddy Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Marshall Fields. At that time, they convened a meeting of municipal administrators and politicians and citizens to take a hard look at what was happening with the political machine in America, and specifically what they were looking to do was to put government back into the hands of the people at that time. That's when political machines were at their height. Through the New Politics Program at the Civic League, we look to promote innovative political reforms at the State and local level. This, in fact, brings us full circle to our 20 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 founding mission in 1894, which was to help local reform groups learn from each other's successes and failures and to develop specific proposals for making government more honest, efficient, and effective. The New Politics Program connects with the National Civic League's philosophy that all major political reform begins at the local level, gains momentum, and is eventually codified in federal law. This also extends to our interest in political reform and democratic renewal. In 1998, the National Civic League published this book, Local Campaign Finance Reform: Case Studies, Innovations and Model Legislation, and this book has been distributed, actually, to the City Councilmembers here in Philadelphia and to many other elected officials throughout the country as well as reform-minded activists throughout the country. The book itself was an enormous undertaking for our organization, and along with that, it was an enormous leap of faith. The suspicion at that time was that there was a lot of activity happening on the local municipal level around campaign finance reform, but it was just a suspicion or a belief that local 21 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 democracy was healthy and vital was confirmed through the study. The study confirmed that over 75 municipalities within the country had passed, enacted some type of campaign finance reform. So we discovered through the survey that a quiet movement was taking hold, and that movement continues to move forward today. Two-thirds of the reforms that we studied, that are documented in this book, have been enacted since 1990. Prior to 1990, other reforms has been enacted. For example, in 1979, the City of Seattle passed campaign finance reform that included contribution limits. There are to date 133 municipal entities that have passed contribution limits, so those extend beyond the time period that this book was --
Those are standing pieces of legislation, yes. I think it's important to say that 22 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 local campaign finance reform is an ongoing evolution. Indicators point to increasingly comprehensive campaign finance reform being passed over time. A lot of the municipalities that we've looked at start out with a baseline model and move forward into more comprehensive legislation.
Could you tell us some of the major cities that have passed it and very roughly the kind of limitations they have, just very briefly, maybe not exactly, but in general.
Okay. And I will make mine very rough because I believe someone from Los Angeles as well as New York is going to follow me in their testimony, and they're actually running those programs. But Philadelphia is one of the top ten cities in the United States -- actually one of two of the most populous City cities in the United States that has no type of campaign finance reform.
But tell me, say, in New York, where Giuliani and Hillary Clinton are breaking all kinds of fund-raising records, in New 23 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Jersey, where Jon Corzine has raised maybe 35 to $40 million against an opponent that raised $2 million. Give us major states like that.
Okay. I can speak more expertly to more local municipalities than I can to state or federal-wide races, other than what everyone reads in the newspaper, not necessarily from my level of expertise.
That's right. And New York City and Los Angeles both have incredibly comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation that they work on. Both programs that -- two of the administrators from those programs will speak to you about the success of those. There's also the City of Tuscon that has comprehensive campaign finance reform. There are a number of cities -- there are actually, in total, in our database 16 cities and counties in the United States that have what we tend to define as "comprehensive campaign 24 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 finance reform legislation," which typically including contribution limits, spending limits that are tied to public financing, so some type of public financing, either partial or full.
New York City is one of the very successful models, as is Los Angeles. And I would actually defer my questions to those cities to those administrators.
And we're going to have -- I think the young woman's going to be a witness on that.
Some questions have been raised about Los Angeles not having partisan primaries, as we have in Philadelphia and a second place in the State of New Jersey and often in the state of New York. We'll be interested in knowing how it applies there. Well, we thank you very much.
A few more words. In late 1999 through June of this year, the New Politics Program has been working directly with coalitions in five locations across the country to catalyze the dialogue around campaign finance reform and move it forward into concrete policy proposals. These locations include Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; West Chester County, New York; Cincinnati, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; and the State of New Jersey. Our role on each side has been to put our principles of collaborative problem-solving and consensus-based decision-making into practice. The application of these principles in /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 each setting typically with a diversely representative coalition has been inspiring at the least. Elected officials and citizens care about the health of their democracy at the local level. In an exercise that we facilitated here in Philadelphia, we asked a group a question that gave the following answers. And the question was really about what critical values in campaign finance reform would you want to see reflected? Their answers came out roughly as follows. These are sort of the areas: To address the perception of corruption in the political process; To free elected officials to govern, rather than fund-raise; To remove money from the access and/or influence equation; To bring new candidates into the system; To develop fair competition. I think it's been referred to as "leveling the playing field" in a lot of ways; Increase voter participation; And improve the political discourse. 27 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 These values inform the shaping of a policy that the Coalition developed, and many of those elements are reflected in the proposal before you today. And the other thing I just wanted to do quickly was to go through some of the larger pieces of the legislation and let you know about other municipalities where similar components have been enacted. So in terms of --- I've already mentioned the mandatory contribution limits. In our database, we have 133 municipalities that have mandatory contribution limits, starting with Seattle in 1979 and continuing forward to today. And I should also preface this with, some of this data was most recently modified in 1998, so there could be a greater number than what I'm reporting to you now. In terms of the mandatory limit in off-year elections for fund-raising, there are 16 municipalities in total that have some form of time limits on fund-raising. Again, this is covered in our book, and we have more information at our office in Denver than is covered in this 28 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 book, if anyone has any specific questions about that. In terms of the pay-to-play, which Councilman Ortiz had mentioned, we also look at this in this book, and a more broad sense, those are categorized as conflict-of-interest laws. There are about municipalities in the country 9 currently that have those that type of policy 10 enacted. 11 And, finally, in terms of voluntary 12 spending limits tied to public financing, there 13 are 13 city-county entities that have enacted that 14 type of policy. 15 As I mentioned earlier, Philadelphia is 16 the largest city in America with no regulation on campaign finance at the municipal level. It is home to most expensive municipal election in history, with a final tally of $27.5 million. Philadelphia now stands at a critical juncture of opportunity -- the opportunity to lead the state in local campaign finance reform policy, and by extension, to pave the way for political reform and democratic renewal at the local level. Thank you. 29 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2
And also, just to let you know, I didn't type up my testimony, but I will be happy to hereafter; I will get you a copy of this afternoon.
All right. We will be grateful. Thank you. Barbara Dietrich.
Good afternoon, Councilman Cohen, Chair, and the members of the law and government committee. I am Barbara Dietrich, President of the League of Women Voters of Philadelphia. And we have my testimony typed out for you here.
The League of Women Voters of Philadelphia has a continuing concern for maximum citizen participation in the political process. The campaign finance reform bill before City Council provides an opportunity for candidates to enhance the participation of their constituents by soliciting monetary contributions 30 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 that would not be overshadowed by large gifts of money from donors who hope to curry favor with elected officials. When candidates raise larger numbers of small individual contributions, they engage citizens in the local governmental process and are more likely to get those persons to vote for them. The League, as conveners of the Philadelphia Clean Money Clean Elections Campaign Coalition, and its partners, would like to cultivate a climate where elected officials are accountable to their local voters, rather than to outside contributors. As you know, the 1999 Philadelphia mayor's race had a national record of $27.5 million in total contributions, including several $100,000 donations, as reported in a recent Inquirer editorial. The provisions of the bill would also eliminate the pay-to-play aspects of the current system, which could help to put an end to the perceived undue influence in the election process caused by campaign fund-raising. Through a system of public financing, citizens who may not have the financial resources currently needed to be a 31 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 strong candidate could have the chance to run for public office. The high cost of winning an election favors candidates who are either well off or well-connected. In addition, incumbent candidates must constantly funds for reelection, which takes time away from the community which they were elected to serve. Presently, the general public has a low level of trust in politics and government, which could be one reason for apathy on Election Day. An increase in the number of people who are able to run for public office could lead to more citizens exercising their right to vote. Another provision in the ordinance 16 which the League favors is the inclusion of two one-hour debates per covered election for candidates. This commitment to discuss the issues helps to dispel the cynicism of the electorate and offers the assurance that all candidates are being treated fairly and that there is no political favoritism. The League of Women Voters of Philadelphia strongly supports the amendment to the Home Rule Charter which would establish an 32 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 independent campaign finance board. The membership of that board is designed to be nonpartisan, which is important to the League, which, itself, is nonpartisan. The amendment of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter is a serious matter. The League does not automatically support or oppose a proposed amendment. We support a change only when it would better serve all citizens. The League does support the question to be submitted to the voters at the general election on November 7, 2000 regarding the amendment of the Charter. In a city which is known as "the Cradle of Liberty," we can offer the opportunity to all of our citizens to make a difference in the life of the community by empowering them politically. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people is still a goal worthy of pursuit by all who hold elective office. Campaign finance reform can be the hallmark of this City Council's continued concern for its constituents in the new millennium. Thank you.
Thank you very much. 33 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Any questions for Miss Dietrich? There's just one that I may want to repeat. You know, we're so careful in our discourse when we say "the perceived concern of money-buying influence." Does anyone have any question on that?
You know, why would so many businesses spend so much money if they didn't they were getting solid results from it?
The only genuine answer I've ever heard anybody give that made any sense was, Well, if we can all businessmen to do it, you know, it jacks up the price of the contributions, and then we can say, as candidates have in local elections, everybody contributes to us, so it means none of them have any influence, you know, and I think that strains our imagination, it strains our ability to believe our public issues.
The next panel will be Mike Petro, Vice President for Business and Government Policy of the Committee for Economic Development. (Witness comes forward.)
We appreciate you're being here. We know you've got to dash off to Washington. Is that the headquarters of your organization?
Yes, sir. We're located both in New York and in Washington, DC.
All right. Please, for the record, would you state your name and organization, and proceed.
Sure. Let me introduce myself. My name is Michael J. Petro, and I am the Vice President for Business and Government Policy for the Committee for Economic Development, CED. CED was formed nearly six decades ago by a group of business executives to promote the 35 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Marshall Plan. Today we remain an independent research and policy organization of some 220 business leaders and prominent university presidents. We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to studying and proposing policies that promote steady economic growth, increased productivity, and living standards and greater and more equal opportunity for every citizen and an improved quality of life for all. " The recommendations contained in that report were developed by a special committee cochaired by Ed Kangas, Chairman of Deloitte Touche, and George Rupp, the President of Columbia University. Since the release of the report, more than 200 prominent business leaders and civic leaders throughout the country have endorsed our recommendations. Over the past year, CED has put to rest the idea that the business community supports the status quo, loves giving ever-increasing amounts of money to campaigns, is unconcerned about the damage the system is doing to our democratic 36 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 institutions, and opposes far-reaching reform. The business executives involved in our efforts are, first and foremost, concerned about the negative impact our current system of funding elections on democracy shareholders, the voters, but they are also convinced that the status quo threatens our economic and business climate. Our report says a vibrant economy and well-functioning business system will not remain viable in an environment of real or perceived corruption, which will corrode confidence in government and business. If public policy decisions are made, or appear to be made, on the basis of political contributions, not only will policy be suspect, but its uncertain arbitrary character would make business-planning less effective and the economy less productive. CED is focusing on reforming the federal system. In brief, we call for banning so-called soft money, increasing candidates' access to resources by increasing slightly the current federal contributions limit, and establishing a partial public financing system adopting voluntary spending limits, similar to 37 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 your proposal today. This afternoon, let me focus on the public-financing and spending-limit components of our plan, as you consider a similar proposal. Under our proposal, Congressional candidates would receive $2 for every dollar received from an individual donor up to a maximum of $400 for each contribution of $200. Candidates would qualify by raising a threshold amount of money in small dollar-donations. Those who accept the public financing would be required to abide by spending limits. As you might imagine, the public financing part of our plan surprises many people. The common and wrong assumption is that the business executives would not support this type of public expenditure, but as the CED report says, we make no apology for proposing direct public financing of this program. The improvement of our campaign finance system is a public benefit and it should, therefore, be publicly funded. It's an investment in the people's business. Our business leaders had very specific reasons for supporting public finance. First, 38 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 they were concerned about the decline in contributions from smaller donors. By providing matching funds, we hope to leverage more contributions from small donors. Under our plan, for example, a $200 contribution would be worth $600 to the candidate. Second, the public subsidy provides an incentive for candidates to seek smaller contributions from a larger number of donors.
Today, candidates, for understandable reasons, focus almost exclusively on contributors with deep pockets, to the exclusion of average citizens. Third, public financing helps reduce the escalating burden of fund-raising. Our business executives are appalled at how much time elected officials spend fund-raising. They clearly understand that the chase dollars distracts officeholders from doing the people's business. Fourth, our members view public financing as a way to diminish the risk of corruption and, just as important, the appearance of corruption, which erodes public confidence in our democratic institutions. Matching smaller 39 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 contributions broadens the base of financial support and reduces candidate' reliance on special-interest money. And, finally, and probably more important, we believe that public financing will enhance competition in elections by providing challengers with sufficient funds to run viable campaigns. This is another overlooked perspective of corporate executives. They are pro-competition. S. House of Representatives, they saw that there are very few competitive races. This diminishes the choices voters can make. Today, fund-raising burdens and obstacles discourage many good candidates from running in the first place. Those are our main reasons for advocating a system of public funding of federal elections. It's important to stress here that we believe that public funding needs to be linked to voluntary spending limits. Let me close by reiterating why business leaders are joining the reform cause. Like most Americans, they understand that the 40 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 current system of financing elections is out of control. Increasingly, business leaders are pitted against each other in the competition for ever-larger contributions. Corporate executives understand that the public sees them as part of the problem; they want to be a part of the solution. Importantly, business leaders are concerned about how the system of funding elections skews public policy in a dangerous way. As our cochairman, Ed Kangas, recently reported, today, many business leaders are alarmed that decisions in Washington may be made on the basis of who put the largest pile of cash on the table, instead of what makes sense or what is best for the country. Creating public policy on the basis of political contributions makes business planning less effective and the economy less productive. While these words referred to flaws of our federal system, I think they offer some sound advice for those looking at any reform proposal. The voters, whether nationally or in this great City of Philadelphia, will benefit from reform that ensures their voice is protected and that 41 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 they can have a greater faith in their democratic institutions. I applaud your efforts to consider meaningful reform, and I appreciate your interest in our work and perspective. And thank you for asking me here today.
Thank you. Are you familiar with the Philadelphia bill?
Could you tell us what you feel about it. Are there any suggestions you have? Does it go in the right direction from your point of view? And when I say "you," I'm referring to your organization.
To the organization, yeah. I think the -- especially the public financing part of it, which mirrors the CED proposal, is clearly in the right direction. Our trustees looked at some of the similar issues that you guys did here, and in certain cases, just were less concerned about -- in one particular instance it was raised that people shouldn't be able to make contributions if they had businesses before 42 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 certain committees, and our trustees rejected that, but it wasn't any strong rejection; it was just that they were mainly concerned about it getting soft money out of the system and concerned about having some sort of a system that promoted competition inside. And I think that they would applaud you here today because that's what they would view that that does.
Rosemary, I asked her to come in if she wanted to, but she said that she would contact you, and I'm glad that you actually did come. Are there other Philadelphia business people that are members of the Committee for Economic Development?
Yeah, we have about ten people in the Philadelphia area that have endorsed CED's proposal. And last March, we put together a lunch here in Philadelphia, where we brought together some business leaders, just to talk about the issue, engage them in a dialogue about this issue, because what we find is, as you talk to 43 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 them more and more, they don't like the system, they don't like the shakedown. They use that term a lot.
Shakedown, and they don't like it. But, quite frankly, I think there are an awful lot of people don't want to stick neck out, and they're sort of waiting to see what happens with some of these business movements. And Mr. Rizzo, I think, attended our lunch in March, the CED lunch that we had and talking about this issue, and we were going around the country, using our trustee base as an anchor and having them as -- Rosemary invited some of her friends and we talked about the issue, and we had about 30 or so people who, you know, I think were very favorably inclined.
So as well as pay-to-play, this mean be the beginning of the end of the shakedown politics across the country.
Well, business folk are victims as well as maybe unlawful beneficiaries of the current system. 44 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2
Yes. I mean, one of the things -- what happened with our organization was after the '96 elections, a number of our trustees came forward and they said, Enough is enough, this was way out of control. And what they were particularly offended by was the phone call that pitted them against their competitor in the same industry. You know what I mean? And that was particularly offensive to them. What we state in our report is that we would rather compete in the marketplace. As business leaders, we'd rather compete in the marketplace than the political arena. And I think that you will find, as go around the country and you talk to business leader, there's more and more sentiment in that direction.
Yeah. You've added a new word to our lexicon. Thank you. I'm going to ask the next one Rebecca 45 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Avila, the Executive Director of the Los Angeles City Ethics Committee. (Witness comes forward.)
Will you please state your name and tell us the situation in Los Angeles.
My name is Rebecca Avila, and I am the Executive Director of the City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission. In the City of Los Angeles, my organization, our city agency, the City Ethics Commission, has jurisdiction over the city's ethics, lobbying, and campaign finance laws. It is a city agency funded by the general fund. We have five commissioners, each appointed by a different elected official. The Commission has the authority to hire and fire me, the Executive Director, and I have the authority over the staff.
Who are the elected officials that appoint the commissioners.
The mayor, city attorney, 46 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 city controller, the council president, and the council president pro tem. The theory behind having a different elected official appoint a member of the Commission is that no single elected official would, thereby, be able to control the action or decisions of the Ethics Commission. We have staff people and a budget of approximately 9 $1.2 million. 10 This afternoon, I understand you want 11 me to focus on our campaign finance program. The 12 City of Los Angeles's campaign finance program is 13 very comprehensive, and as part of that, it's also 14 very complex. It's a program that was really 15 adopted in two states. In 1985, the voters of Los 16 Angeles approved the ballot measure that enacted 17 contribution limits. The limits on contributions 18 in the City of Los Angeles for citywide office -- 19 and that would be the offices of mayor, city 20 attorney, and controller -- $1,000 per person per 21 election, with the primary and the runoff being 22 considered separate elections. For the offices of city council -- and we have 15 city councilmembers and they're elected by district. Unlike Philadelphia, we do not have 47 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 any at-large members of our city council. The contribution limits for them are $500 per person per election. In 1990, the voters of Los Angeles were faced with a ballot measure that included a partial public financing system for campaigns, as well as the creation of our agency, the City Ethics Commission, to administer and enforce that program. In addition to the contribution limits then, in 1990, what we enacted was a funding for the partial public financing program, a fund-raising window. There is no longer continuous fund-raising for our city elections in the City of Los Angeles. If you are a candidate for citywide office, you can begin fund-raising months 18 before the election in which you will appear on 19 the ballot. If you are running for city council, 20 you may begin fund-raising 18 months before the 21 election on which you appear on the ballot. There 22 will be a proposal before our city council to 23 continue to consider shortening the fund-raising 24 window to 18 months for citywide office and 12 months for city council. 48 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 In addition to the fund-raising window, we also have-- and in addition to the individual contribution limits, we have a limit known as "the aggregate contribution limit," and that's the limit on the total amount an individual can make to all candidates in the race. There is also a limit on the total amount of contributions a candidate can accept from non-individuals -- corporations, labor unions, or what have you PACs.
It varies, depending on the office. It's 900,000 for the office of mayor. Finally, we also have a mandatory training requirement. Every candidate and treasurer is required to attend a training session conducted by our agency, and they are also subject to mandatory audits. Any campaign that spends $100,000 or more or any campaign that receives any public funding will be audited by our office. The partial public financing program is voluntary. A candidate can choose not to participate. If they want to participate in the program, they agree to limit their spending and 49 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 they agree to limit the amount of personal funds they are going to use in their race. They also agree to debate their opponents. The formula to get public matching funds is $1 to every dollar of contribution you receive from an individual. Let me give you an example. As I mentioned to you before, the limit in a council race is $500, so I, as the candidate, could accept a $500 contribution from an individual, and $250 of that contribution will be matched by public financing. There is a maximum on the total amount of public financing a candidate can receive in a given election. Does the program work? We've conducted an extensive analysis of the four elections in which the program has been operating. You should have been provided with a copy of two studies. One is Investing in Competition: Campaign Finance Reform in the City of Los Angeles. It looks at three elections. And then there's an addendum that we produced last year, after the most recent election. Based on these four elections, here's what our analysis demonstrated: 50 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 The program has succeeded in controlling spending, particularly by incumbents and by candidates in open-seat races. Historically, open-seat races were the most expensive races conducted in our city. In addition, challengers have been provided with more resources, which has enabled them to get their message out and compete more effectively with incumbents. In addition to the statistics, however, I think it's important to take a moment to listen to what the candidates had to say about their experiences. After every election, we surveyed the candidates and their treasurers, and here's what they said: First of all, on the subject of spending limits, there's been concern -- there was concern in our city of over whether our spending limits were high enough to enable people to compete effectively. Candidates have said that the amount of our spending limits are high enough so that it doesn't matter. It gives confidence to their donors that there will be a level playing field. And most importantly, what they like best 51 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 about the program, naturally enough, is the public matching program. It enables them to spend more time communicating with the voters, walking precincts, participating in candidate forums, and less time on the phone raising money. Incumbent candidates who participated in the program also noted that it enabled them to spend more time on council business during the election instead of campaigning. They estimate that between 30 and 75 percent of their time is spent fund-raising, and the program frees them from spending even more time on that activity. Finally, participation in our program has been very high. Eighty-eight percent of the candidates in the last election participated in the program -- all of the incumbents except one.
The one that did not 52 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 participate.
That's correct, the incumbent who did not participate still was successful in getting elected.
Isn't it important that the electorate kind of vote on the campaign issue --
-- considering it is a very important factor, the person's participation?
I think it's certainly important for us. The proposition that was on the ballot that created the partial public financing program was approved by 57 percent of the voting electorate in that election. So the program is perceived to have widespread public support. We've also had consistent editorial support by the local media. As a result, there has not been any backlash on participants for taking public financing in their elections, and I think that's 53 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 been an important factor.
Well, I think more important would be the factor of making it clear to people who are perceived as trying to buy an election that it can't be done. For example, Jon Corzine may have many very fine aspects to his campaign in New Jersey, but isn't it kind of a disgrace to have one candidate have enough money available so that he can spend $40 million in a race in which in normal fund-raising, maybe he could only raise, even at the highest level, to million? And I think the public votes on campaign financing when they vote in an election like, where somebody's clearly using his money to try to buy the election, I think you've got to say it's that the plain. And I'm concerned in this coming election. One candidate has chosen not to participate and indicates that -- I think that gives a very clear indication of the character and of the integrity of the candidate. And so I think you vote on campaign finance reform in more than one way. You vote on 54 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 bills like this, which I think are important to pass, and you vote when the candidate flouts the public campaign laws when they get enacted.
Well, our experience in the City of Los Angeles has been rather an interesting one in terms of the wealth candidate issue. Both the state level and at the local level, we have had candidates spend a great deal of their personal funs on their campaigns. Some win, some how. Our current mayor spent a great deal of his personal wealth to get elected the first time. But I do think it's important to note that that was the first election under our partial public financing system, and his opponent, while he was defeated, I don't think there's anybody in the city who would say he was not able to get his message out. Because of the partial public financing system, he was able to compete more effectively against the wealthy candidate, who ultimately won.
Didn't you have a candidate, I think, by the name of Huffington, running for the U.S. Senate --
-- who tried to buy his -- it seemed as if he was trying to buy his way. He spent an enormous sum of money and he was defeated, wasn't he? I don't know whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. I don't remember the particulars.
And he was defeated. One final point, perhaps, and that is that, in terms of estimating the cost of the program, I would caution interested parties from simply doing a simple mathematical calculation and thinking that the program will cost as much as the maximum amount available times the number of candidates. You could do that calculation, but it will overestimate the cost of the program. What we have seen is, while candidate will opt in to participate in the program, they still have to qualify to receive the matching funds, and even if they qualify to receive the matching funds, it is a matching program, so they have to raise contributions in order to get 56 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 matched. So we've had very few candidates actually reach the maximum.
There is a requirement in our city charter that the council and the mayor appropriate $2 million from our general fund every fiscal year until the fund equals $8 million, plus interest. The fund cannot exceed that amount. So, for example, in our current fiscal year, the appropriation from the city council and the mayor was a few hundred thousand dollars and because the program -- the fund will be fully funded this year. Now, we have an election coming up in 2001. It's a very big election for us, we will have nine open seats on the ballot. So I expect there to be a large demand on the fund. However, we still think we can withstand that demand. In fact, the Commission is recommending to the city council that we consider tweaking our formula to go to a two-to-one match instead of a dollar-for-dollar match.
And in terms of the 57 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 limits in spending, what are the limits on the mayoral and the city council races?
Let me just refer to my chart so I give you the right numbers. For the mayor's race, in the primary, the spending limit is $2.2 million. The maximum matching funds available to you if you qualify is $667,000. If you go to a runoff, the spending limit would be $1.7 million, and the maximum matching funds would be $800,000. For comparison purposes, for city council candidates, the spending limit in the primary would be $330,000, the maximum matching funds available, $100,000. And then the runoff for council candidates, it would be $275,000 spending limit, and the maximum matching funds would be $125,000.
So the spending limit for mayoral in a city of, what, 3 million-plus, and probably more, is $2 million?
$2.2 million in order to be able to qualify for public funds?
No, that's not the 58 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 qualification; that's the spending limit.
In order to qualify for the program -- for mayor, you have to raise $150,000 or more and contributions of 500,000 or less within months of the election. 11
Oh, okay. And your 12 city council is proportionately the same? 13
$25,000 is the threshold 14 for our city council candidates. 15
Could you describe 22 in your process if a candidate loans his campaign 23 or her campaign money, is that candidate allowed 24 to recover that loan?
Yes. A participant in the 59 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 campaign finance -- if you opt into the partial public financing system, remember, part of that is that you agreed to limit the personal funds you're going to use. And that would include a loan. So if you're a council candidate, you have agreed to limit your personal funds to $25,000. And it can be a combination of loans or contributions. If you loan the money, you can certainly get paid back.
No. We will have -- you -- hopefully, the model that we have -- and your campaigns are nonpartisan?
That's correct. And I know that's a significant difference from your situation here. We have change nonpartisan elections in the City of Los Angeles. 60 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Before I leave, the one final thing I would say to you is that it is a continuing process. We a great program, it's a comprehensive program, but we are continually trying to improve it.
You know, it's funny. One comment that was made to me the other day by a very good friend and a political friend, he said, Hey, look, this is Philadelphia, this is a big city. I mean, you're coming from a bigger city than we are. But this is Philadelphia. I mean, you're going to go out and ask the people of Philadelphia to give money to politicians so that they can run their campaigns? Ha! You know, there's that sort of cynical type of attitude that people will not invest in their government. And I think that permeates a part of our political environment here in the city, that we don't believe that people will buy into a public financing formula. I think the same situation was in L.A., right? I believe politicians didn't believe that people would buy into, you know, a public financing formula. Was there this same sort of 61 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 cynicism about the electorate there?
Yes, there was. In fact, in our case, it was compounded by the fact that the ballot measure that created our push of public financing system also included a 30 per pay raise for our elected officials.
For our city council, in exchange for them no longer having outside employment. The conventional wisdom at the time was that that was a poison pill and that the voters would not support the ballot measure. As a result, the city council wrote the most ethics ordinance in the country for a local municipality because they believed that they wouldn't ultimately have to live under those rules. They were quite surprised when the voters approved it by 57 percent.
I think if we give the people of Philadelphia a chance to vote on whether they prefer the current system or a new one, I think they'll opt for a new one. I have 62 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 that faith in the people. And just like in L.A., it happened; and in New York, the same thing, I think. I think we can buy into it.
Thank you very much. Nicole Gordon, Executive Director of the New York City Campaign Finance Board. (Witness comes forward.)
Thank you so much for inviting me to be here today. I have a number of handouts, and I wonder if I could distribute them.
Right. My name is Nicole Gordon. I'm the Executive Director of the New York City Campaign Finance Board. It's a nonpartisan independent city agency that administers New York City's program of public financing.
If you would give 63 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 the handouts to the gentleman that's approaching you from the Sergeant-At-Arms office, he will make the distribution.
It was established first by legislation by our city council and, in a sense, confirmed by a charter revision that was voted upon and approved by almost 80 percent of the population.
Yes. It was a comprehensive charter revision, included which was the campaign finance program. Let me give these handouts. One is my prepared testimony which, I must say, I have more -- I have some amendments to -- having studied them additionally on the way down here. And in addition to that, I'd like to hand up copies of a voter guide that we -- a nonpartisan voter guide that we publish that goes to every registered voter in the City of New York, some pamphlets that describe the mandate of our Board, and various publications, rules, 64 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 comprehensive report that we publish after each election, which I see you have provided for in your proposed bill, as well.
In which there is existing borough machineries of the Democratic and Republican party and other parties in New York.
Oh, yes, that's correct. If it's acceptable to you, then I will just begin with my prepared testimony, which I will just try to summarize rather than read every word that's printed here.
First of all, I want to congratulate this body for giving serious consideration to finance reform. It is surely the most difficult subject that a legislature grapples with. And one of the reasons, I think, is that every member of the legislature is an expert on the subject matter. But I do believe that strengthening the democratic process by reducing 65 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 the role that money plays in elections is the urgent concern of every legislative body. In New York City, our program of reform, which was first enacted by the New York City Council in 1988, is evidence that campaign finance reform can succeed, but to echo what Becky Avila just mentioned, it is a continual process of reform, it must be constantly revisited, changes have to be made constantly. But having had 11 years experience with that process in New York 12 City, I am pleased to have the opportunity to give you some reflections on our experience. One aspect of the New York City Campaign Finance Board that I urge you to include in your bill is that it is charged to operate in a, quote, nonpartisan manner, and I think that's a crucial concern.
The Board is charged. Now, unlike our City Board of Elections, for example, which is bipartisan, which I think is a very different, our board is nonpartisan, and I am pleased to say that the culture of our Board has, from its inception, been 66 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 truly nonpartisan. People leave their party affiliation at the door, and when they come into the room and have to vote on penalties or anything else, they have to judge every matter on its merits. Our program gives matching funds to candidates who agree to contribution expenditure limits, a ban on corporate contributions, detailed disclosure of their campaign finances, and they must submit themselves to the audit powers of the Board, and that's another item that I want to amend in my testimony. As I read your bill -- and I don't know what other provisions of law might apply to the board that you're proposing. I did not see there the power of audit or of subpoena or the other kinds of powers that I think an investigatory body needs to have, and I think that's particularly important when a body is giving out public matching funds. The public, while I think it will support these programs, it must do so with the feeling that the money will be given out fairly and that it will be given out for the purposes that it was intended for, and that requires a 67 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 board has the power to do full investigations and to call people to account if they are not properly spending the money or are not entitled to it. In addition, in New York City, we do have a provision that requires candidates for citywide office who join the program to participate in a series of mandatory debates. And let me digress again for just a moment there. Our board, years ago, published a report advising against linking mandatory debates to a program of public financing. Our city council, nonetheless, decided to go forward with that. We have had one experience with it in the 1997 elections in New York City. I think it went very, very well. I think the Board is pleased with it. I think possibly, if the Board were presented with the same question today, they would have a different opinion from the one that they expressed some few years ago, but I think it is a very treacherous territory for a government agency to get involved with, and I would urge you to be very cautious about how you proceed in this area. I notice, for example, that you have this for all the various offices. In New York 68 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 City, we only have it for the citywide campaigns, and it is very difficult for a board to do. Also in New York, we have a provision that allows us to choose sponsors to conduct the debates. We don't do that ourselves. And it wasn't clear to me from your legislation whether you intend that the board itself will administer the debates, which I think might not be the appropriate thing for the board --
-- itself to be doing. Our program is open to candidates for three citywide offices. That's mayor, controller, and public advocate. It is also open to the 5 borough president offices and to the 51 city council seats.
Districts, right. We don't have any at large. No, that's a distinction from Philadelphia. The candidates who are entitled to receive public funds are people who are on the ballot, who have an opponent on the ballot, and 69 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 who have met the threshold fund-raising requirements. And if they qualify, they then can receive matching funds of up to $4 for every $1, up to $250 per contributor, and the contributions must come from residents of New York City.
That is correct. To be matched. Since 1988, when our program was established, there have been many changes in our program. The public funds matching rate was one change, the contribution limits have been reduced, the ban upon corporate contributions was introduced. The mandatory, as I mentioned, was added, and there were other limitations on PAC contributions. And each change was made in order to improve the program after the Board had made recommendations. The city council has not always accepted our recommendations, but I can say that they have really improved the program a great deal over time. I'd also like to mention that among the results that the program has had in New York City 70 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 are: Number one, we have successfully reduced the size, the average size of private contributions to candidates;. We have increased the number of individuals who felt it was useful to make contributions; It has created a more even playing field among serious candidate, particularly as a result of spending limits; It has created greater opportunities for credible candidates to run competitive campaigns; And it has provided the public with nearly instantaneous access through the Board's Web site and its searchable database to candidates' campaign finance information.
What are the spending limits in terms of mayor and council?
For mayor, for the primary -- the primary and the general election have separate spending limits, and it's something over -- it's over 5.2 million for each election. For city council, it is about -- depending on the 71 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 pre-election year spending, it ranges in the 150 to 200,000 range, and 200,000 is the top.
Are the candidates for mayor accepted? What's been your experience since the law has been enacted with your mayoralty races?
Almost everyone has opted in. We had two exceptions that are worth mentioning. One was Rod Lauder, who ran a race in which he spent $12 million in the primary alone. He did not opt in.
Ron Lauder. And Andy Stein, years ago, thought about running. He began a campaign and he had to withdraw because the public was offended by the nature of his spending in the context of what other candidates were doing. 72 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2
He ran and he withdrew. He started to run and then he withdrew, and I think it's fair to say that that was largely because of the adverse publicity that he received that related to his fund-raising and spending outside the program's requirements. And one of the most important aspects of our program is that the support we've gotten from the civic groups and from the editorial boards has been very, very strong. And I think it's fair to say that the New York Times, for example, would probably not endorse a candidate, for mayor at least, who was not a participant in the program. They are very, very strong proponents of our law.
Let me say that Councilman Nutter, a member of the committee, has also joined us. Councilman Rizzo, did you have a question? 73 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2
Councilman Kenney also has joined the hearing. Yeah, go ahead.
The question I have, in your district races, is the district candidate required to live in the district?
Yes. I think, as a technical matter, they -- I'm not sure what the date is by which the candidate has to be a resident, I'm not sure of that, but the answer is yes.
So if a person decides to run for a district office, not a citywide office or precinct -- I don't know how you refer to them there.
Let me interrupt again. Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown is also attending the hearing. Councilman Kenney, who I mentioned a moment ago, is the other chief cosponsor of this bill, together with Councilman 74 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Ortiz.
So the unanswered part of the question is that if you decide to run, you may be able to move into the district that day and qualify?