Public financing -- in which funds are given to candidates who can reach fund-raising plateaus -- has been in place for San Francisco supervisoral candidates since 2000 and mayoral candidates since 2005. And almost as soon as city law established that $1.9 million was to be placed in reserve for public financing each year, San Francisco politicians -- namely the mayor -- found ways to drain an equal or greater amount.
Our calls to Mirkarimi have not yet been returned -- to be fair to the man, there is a full board meeting today. In the past, he's said the specter of lost jobs spurred his decision to send the $1 million to the convention center.
Fair enough, say public finance advocates. Pitting public finance against poignant, pressing matters may be the logical -- and politically expedient -- thing to do. But it also ensures public financing will always lose out.
"We shouldn't have to argue against school lunches or potholes or any other thing," said Rob Arnow, the co-author of the city's 2005 mayoral public financing law. "Rather, we've argued in the general sense that public financing is important -- and saves money in the long run. Governments have huge budget problems because they act in the interest of campaign contributors demanding favors -- and legislation helping them doesn't help the public."
Messages for Ethics Commission Executive Director John St. Croix asking the balance of the city's public financing fund have not yet been returned. But Arnow pieced together the year's additions -- and subtractions -- to the fund before declaring this latest move leaves 2011 mayoral hopefuls in the lurch.
Follow the bouncing budget: Starting with a reserve of $2.8 million in January, the city removed $2.3 million (which it didn't publicize) but added $1.9M (which it did). Then the supes restored $1.3 million of the previously cut money, and placed another $1 million in reserve -- the million bucks now likely headed to the convention center.
If the supes put the customary $1.9 million into the kitty next year (again, a huge "if"), and if the city spends as much to fund supervisoral races in 2010 as it did in 2008 (around $1.3 million), that would leave the pool at $4.3 million in January of 2011. Public finance advocates say a minimum of $5.1 million is needed to ensure six strong mayoral candidates can receive public funding. The only declared candidate for that race, Supervisor Bevan Dufty, told SF Weekly that receiving public financing was the backbone of his campaign strategy.
Obviously, this is not the sort of funding stream one wants to make up as he or she is going along: "You don't want people running for mayor or supporting people running for mayor deciding whether extra money can go to certain candidates or not," said Arnow.
Finally, followers of city politics may remember former Supervisor Jake McGoldrick cutting a deal with Newsom in 2008 to balance the budget by yanking $5.2 million from the public financing pool -- which McGoldrick "promised" would be returned, even after he left office.
To update the status of that promise, not only has the money not been returned, but, obviously, more has been taken.
"Jake said that even though he was out of office, the mayor gave him his word and he'd go to bat for us with the mayor," said Steven Hill, Arnow's co-author of the 2005 public financing law. "So I called Jake and said 'Jake, the mayor's doing it again. Please help us.' And I never heard a word back from Jake McGoldrick."
Update, 1:30 p.m.: Ross Mirkarimi returned our call. He reminded that he was the sponsor of the public finance law (this is true) and said this move made him "uneasy." However, "During decision time when all this was flying fast, we were fighting a rearguard battle to transfer funds in order to bolster public finances that were not delivered based on the promises of Supervisor McGoldrick following his negotiations with the mayor last year." Ouch.
While Mirkarimi said he thought this task had been accomplished, "the convention facilities bureau made it clear that [the money] was not going to material cuts but staff cuts." Mirkarimi says this revelation was made "way after" the decision to put the $1 million on reserve for either the convention bureau or public financing.
"It would have been a better move on the budget floor if we took [the money] from some of the other areas of the city than where we took it from, but I don't think the political will was there among members of the board," he continues, citing Newsom's pet projects, the police department, and city agencies "with a lot of fat on top" as better places to go.
"I want to see the legislation I sponsored grow, but I don't plan to do that on the backs of people who are front-line workers like janitors and other folks."
Update, 3:38 p.m.: John St. Croix of the Ethics Commission returned our e-mail. He says that the public financing pool's current balance is $3.969 million -- the exact amount Arnow figured and used in all his calculations.
St. Croix adds that the balance is down $6 million from June of last year. Since that time, $5 million was transferred to the General Fund in June of '08 (this is the "McGoldrick's promise" transaction); $2.29 million was transferred to the General Fund in May of this year; and in July $1.3 million from the General Fund was sent back to the public financing pool.
