Rules for public support are toughened.
Miami-Dade Commission Amends Public Finance Ordinance.
On February 12, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners voted to amend the
public campaign financing ordinance.
It is easy to overlook the importance of the Commission's February 12 amendment of the public financing ordinance (which was passed by a 7-3 vote, with Commissioners Ferguson, Morales and Sorenson in opposition.) One way to look at is that, with the amendment, the County has moved from a situation where a candidate who raised $3000 would receive $75,000 in public financing, to a situation where a candidate would have to raise $15,000 in order to receive $50,000 in financing, and $25,000 in order to received $75,000.
What this account leaves out is that the entitlement to public funding under the ordinance as it stands is NOT based merely on raising $3,000 (which, at the current maximum of $250 per contribution, could be raised from as few as 12 contributors). Instead, the entitlement is based on raising AT LEAST 200 CONTRIBUTIONS of a minimum of $15 each. With changes as to detail, this is the concept adopted by the four states- Arizona, Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont- that have recently adopted public financing.
In contrast to the original version, under the ordinance as the Commission has amended it, the entitlement would not merely require a specified number of potentially small contributions. Instead, it would require IN ADDITION that the candidate raise a total of $15,000 or $25,000. That would take 1000 or 1667 contributions at the $15 level- however, it would take only 60 or 100 contributions at the $250 level.
It should also be pointed out that as amended, the ordinance does NOT create a matching system as in the City of New York, where there is a four-to-one match of public to private funds. The New York system allows the candidate to qualify for matching funds as private contributions accumulate at specified intervals DURING THE CAMPAIGN. In contrast, the new Miami-Dade system would require the candidate to raise the FULL AMOUNT of the required private contributions prior to the filing deadline for the position- in other words, BEFORE THE CAMPAIGN HAS STARTED.
The Miami-Dade system as originally enacted was intended to create the possibility of an effective campaign by a true grass-roots candidate, that is, a candidate who has support in the community but who is not backed by wealthy contributors, whether those contributors be the current power structure of developers, contractors and lobbyists or some other concentration of financial power.
It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the Commissioners have created an almost insurmountable bar to such a grass-roots candidacy. Under the new system, "them as has, gets." Since the new system would to a great extent merely echo the existing distribution of money and power, it is arguable that it is only marginally better than no public financing it all.
The commissioners who supported the change will not doubt argue that some change is needed to avoid the situation where, as is alleged to have happened in the recent Alliegro/Sosa campaign, a candidate games the system by supplying the contributors with the money they need to make a contribution. The Commissioners went some distance toward solving this problem by requiring that contributions in the form of money orders and travelers checks bear the name and address of the contributor. However, by in addition requiring that qualifying contributions amount to a set total ($15,000 or $25,000), the commissioners used the problem as an excuse for serving their own purposes. This part of their "solution" for the stated problem is no more appropriate than is a hip replacement for a headache. The required amount of contributions is actually a solution to a different problem: the Commissioners' concern lest they be faced with grass-roots opponents.
If the Commissioners had been truly concerned about abuse of the original system, they could have required that each contribution be accompanied by a signed statement by the contributor, under penalty of perjury, stating that the contribution was from the contributor's own funds and was not made from funds supplied by anyone else. The Commissioners did not so require. In addition, they could have increased the number of small contributions required to qualify- but again, they chose not to so act. Instead, the Commissioners chose simply to go back to the old familiar system (at least for themselves- they left open the possibility of a grass-roots mayoral campaign).
The idea of a competitively-funded grass-roots candidacy is not only loathsome to a majority of the Board of County Commissioners- it is also new to Miami-Dade voters, and has not developed the kind of constituency that lines up behind "business as usual." Thus, the action by the Commissioners was able to slip by virtually without notice or protest. The Mayor should veto the ordinance so that it can receive the kind of discussion it merits.
