GILROY—Following a push by Councilman Perry Woodward, the Gilroy City Council is set to decide next month to change city law and raise the amounts that can be donated to and spend on election campaigns.
But it was unclear if the public will get much say in the matter, however, aside from chiming in when the council is scheduled to vote on the topic in June. While several of Woodward’s fellow council members suggested public input or that of a city commission would be helpful, he said he’d prefer to act quickly as the matter was already on the agenda.
At stake is how much seated council members who seek reelection, or the mayor’s seat, and other candidates can accept from donors and spend during their campaigns.
The council appears poised to hike the maximum individuals can contribute by more than half and nearly double the amount candidates can spend to get elected. On the other hand, Gilroy’s existing limitations are on the low end of the spectrum, as pointed out by city staff and many council members at the May 18 meeting.
The elected body will vote June 15 whether to increase the maximum amount individual citizens can contribute to a campaign by 66 percent, from $250 to $750, under city’s law. The council will also vote on nearly doubling the voluntary campaign expenditure limit, from $26,500 to $53,000—a jump from roughly 50 cents to $1 per resident of Gilroy, where new state figures place the population at exactly 53,000.
Mayor Don Gage, who is not seeking reelection, suggested the increases, saying local elections are getting increasingly expensive to run since the city campaign funding and spending ordinance was adopted in 2012. Woodward campaigned as a mayoral campaign in 2012, but removed his hat from the ring after Gage, then leaving his seat on the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board, announced he was entering the local race.
But the reason Gilroy is rethinking its law is because the U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that limits on campaign contributions are unconstitutional.
City Attorney Andy Faber told the council May 18 that Gilroy’s ordinance—which established the voluntary limit and the cap on how much citizens can inject into a campaign—is unenforceable and in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Faber said, equates campaign expenditures and contributions as free speech under the First Amendment and forces cities to rethink the laws on the books.
“Before we get into an election, it would be good to get this settled,” said Woodward, at whose urging the city attorney’s office analyzed Gilroy’s laws in the context of the court ruling.
“I think we have to have a new ordinance, if we’re going to have one. The ordinance that’s there today isn’t there; it’s as if we have no ordinance (in light of its unenforceability),” he said.
Gage suggested the city align closer with Santa Clara County’s election finance rules by increasing the voluntary campaign expenditure limit to $53,000, saying that with only $26,5000, it’s getting “very difficult” to run a campaign.
“People are hiring consultants, doing polls and all that gets very expensive,” he said, also suggesting the council increase the maximum individual contribution limit to $750.
Those individual contributions are important to independent campaign committees—like those formed to support and oppose the city’s failed sales tax Measure F.
The U.S. Supreme Court, on the other hand, frowns upon involuntary limits, Faber said. Voluntary limits cannot be accompanied by some kind of financial gain, however.
As it stands now, if a candidate adopts the voluntary limit, that move is advertised on the pamphlet distributed to voters, announcing they were in compliance with a voluntary law.
Council chambers were nearly empty when the council discussed the topic at the tail end of the May 18 meeting. Hours earlier, the same council chambers were packed as the elected officials voted on the 2040 General Plan land use alternative maps; City Hall emptied following the council’s decision on that separate item.
In light of the fact the council was speaking to an empty house, some council members suggested putting off the decision until citizens had an opportunity to weigh in.
Councilwoman Cat Tucker suggested creating a council sub-committee, comprised of three council members and the city administrator, while Councilman Roland Velasco said holding a study session in June might be a good idea. Councilman Dion Bracco proposed having the city’s Open Government Commission—an all-citizen, volunteer body tasked with ensuring transparency—make a recommendation first.
But Woodward urged the council to make a decision, and make one quickly.
If the council were to hold a study session in June, Woodward said, there’s a “de facto moratorium on raising money for the next election” until a decision is made.
“We need to resolve this, and saying ‘we’re going to pawn it off to a study session’…Why, so we can talk about it? We’re here now,” he added. “What additional information does anyone need that warrants delaying this for another month or two? We have (Gage’s) suggestion. Why can’t we make a decision?”
At a study session, Velasco replied, “we would have the public and have it on the agenda.”
“It was on the agenda,” Woodward said, visibly frustrated.
The mayor calmed the back-and-forth, suggesting the council discuss the topic at the front-end of a council meeting “when there are people here to say something about it.”
Velasco said later he didn’t appreciate a fellow councilman “pushing hard” for the council to come to a consensus.
“I understand this needs to get solved but here we are in May, 13 months away from next campaign season. I think we have a little bit of time,” he added.
• Maximum an individual can contribute to a campaign: $250 (Mayor Don Gage wants it raised to $750)
• Voluntary ceiling on campaign spending: $26,500, about 50 cents/resident (Mayor Don Gage proposed a ceiling of $53,000, or $1/resident)
