Raising Burlingame campaign contributions makes no sense

Today, it seems, that by raising the limits from the 2007 level of $500, ($719 adjusted for inflation,) to just shy of $5,000, the field will be dominated by those with deep-pocketed donors and special interest influencers. After all, there are very few people who believe that big donors don’t wield more influence than those who contribute $10, $20 or $100.

An article in the San Mateo Daily Journal on Oct. 23, quoted several current members of the council justifying the increase. One implied that voters should, “follow the money.” She’s right. But who does?  Plus, when donors are all limited to $500 or less, there is no real need to “follow the money.” Obviously, conflict of interest and influence peddling are less likely to occur when donations are small versus when donations can be $5,000 a pop. Even if there is no influence rendered, the perception still exists and that too is problematic.

Another councilmember said, nearby cities all have similar limitations, so why should Burlingame be the only city with lower limits? Clearly, she does not remember or was not paying attention to the fact that Burlingame candidates were spending absurd amounts of money, a somewhat unique Burlingame circumstance in the early to mid-2000s. And yet another was concerned that the city clerk might feel uncomfortable enforcing the rules with candidates she has come to know. Really? Is it not the city clerk’s job to enforce the election rules? (The fact that she is appointed by the very councilmembers she is supposed to be overseeing rather than being elected by the public is another story).

Simply put, raising the limits does not level the playing field as some councilmembers contend, it skews the field and potentially reduces the number of those who might consider public service. I speak from experience, having lost two elections to those who out spent me — my meager $15,000 from local donors to their $50,000 from special interests and high rollers. It’s not sour grapes. It’s an observation and a hard lesson learned. It’s simply better public policy to encourage those who have the interest in running to pursue it rather than to discourage the impulse.

Burlingame will soon be holding elections not citywide as in years past, but within smaller districts. This is important to note, as campaigning within a smaller area rather than citywide would suggest that even less money will need to be spent on campaigns, not more. Even Assemblymember Kevin Mullin agrees, as quoted in this paper, “I’m just surprised that Burlingame, by a split council vote has chosen to remove their locally-imposed limits, especially in light of an eventual move to district elections, which is designed to actually lower the cost of running campaigns,” he said.

The logic of raising campaign contribution limits now is not only illogical but unnecessary and misguided.

Russ Cohen served on the Burlingame City Council from 2005-2007.