The city council nudged its campaign code into the twenty-first century at its meeting Tuesday. The current rules were adopted in 1994, when people stored their data on floppy disks, not in the Cloud. iPhones and Google didn’t exist. More checks were written than credit cards swiped last century as well. “I don’t think even Amazon existed back then,” said Brad Gerbel, Mayor Richard Bailey’s former campaign manager.
The new ordinance adopted unanimously by the council reflects these changes. People can now use credit cards or debit cards to make campaign contributions. Cash contributions are still illegal. Campaign reporting forms will be posted online, instead of only being available at city hall or the library.
Some wanted the city to step more boldly into the future. Whitney Benzian suggested that electronic bank transfer apps such as Venmo or PayPal be allowed. Carolyn Rodgerson also suggested allowing electronic bank transfers.
These payment forms don’t leave a paper trail though. Councilwoman Carrie Downey pointed out that her tenant pays rent via an electronic bank transfer. There is no name attached to the transfer. “I only have one tenant so I know where it came from,” she said.
The new rules also take inflation into account. People who host candidate parties can now spend up to $500, five times the previous limit of $100. Individual contributions will still be limited to $200 for each candidate. Many saw it as a means to keep costs low, and campaigns truly local.
The new ordinance also requires that campaign donations be per election, not per calendar year. This will prevent candidates shirking the individual donor limits. Under the old rules a candidate could receive a $200 donation a year before the general election and another $200 donation during the campaign. If enough people gave in the year or years leading up to the campaign, a candidate could amass a powerful war chest.
The specter of big money campaigns doesn’t sit well in a town where votes are earned with a handshake at a neighbor’s door or at service club meeting.
“We should keep costs minimal to make it easy for people to run for public office,” said Planning Commission Chair Marvin Heinze, who ran for city council in 2016. “People shouldn’t have to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a job that pays hundreds.”
The city will also continue to employee a special council to investigate alleged campaign violations. Gerbel called it a waste of money.
The special council concept has been around for decades, but was never used until 2016. That year the city spent $36,000 investigating alleged campaign violations. $16,000 was spent looking into the Bailey campaign. The other $20,000 went to investigate other candidates including his opponent Carrie Downey.
Harold Myers, who had challenged Bailey’s funding practices, spoke in support of retaining the current practice, calling it “independent, confidential and effective.” Complaints made to the council are kept secret and only acted on if there is probable cause.
Instead of hiring a special council, Bailey and his former campaign manager wanted to delegate this to the Federal Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The rest of the council rebuffed the idea.
“We’re a small town, we don’t need to throw all this to the FPPC,” said City Councilman Mike Donovan. ”They have a lot more on their plate.”
Bailey not only wanted the FPPC to police city campaigns, he also urged the council to follow FPPC rules instead of creating its own. He argued that not only does the state agency have more expertise, but by adopting FPPC rules the city could more easily evolve its campaign practices as times change.
The same sense of small town ownership that guided the council’s views on a special council prevailed in this as well. “We want to keep it local,” Downey said.
