We’re not sure that we can dismiss more than $12,800 in election
expenses as
”
insignificant
”
as easily as Councilman Bob Dillon. When funds are scarce and
likely to get scarcer, $12,800 is quite a bit of money.
We’re not sure that we can dismiss more than $12,800 in election expenses as “insignificant” as easily as Councilman Bob Dillon. When funds are scarce and likely to get scarcer, $12,800 is quite a bit of money.
After an election in which several of the candidates for City Council raised thousands of dollars, it’s hard to justify asking taxpayers to subsidize the $1,274 per candidate it cost the city to hold the election.
Think how much clay and glaze, paper and paint $12,800 would buy for the recreation department, for example, and then look at Mayor Al Pinheiro’s campaign war chest, which raised $3,000 more than the city-imposed spending limit of $22,487. Why should taxpayers cover the filing costs for a candidate who raised roughly 20 times more than the filing fee?
We’re not insensitive, however, to concerns that candidates with more modest means might be discouraged from running for elected office. We also wouldn’t want to discourage the Mark Dovers of the world, who made a point of not asking for donations in his recent bid for a spot on the City Council dais.
So, we have a proposal. We suggest that when candidates file papers to run for any city office, they pay half of the filing fees. Then, any candidate who raises more than double the amount of the total filing fee – in the 2003 election, that would have been roughly $2,500 – he or she would become responsible for the entire filing fee. A bill could be sent to candidates after their campaign fundraising forms indicate they’ve surpassed that election’s threshold.
This plan has several benefits. First, it reduces the burden on Gilroy taxpayers, who are feeling the fiscal pinch quite enough already, and on city coffers, which is facing reduced revenue at every turn. Second, it doesn’t give a free ride to less-than-serious candidates, so perhaps those considering a run for office on a lark or for a class project, will think twice about being flip with Gilroy voters and the electoral process if real money will come out of their pockets. Third, it provides some assistance to candidates of modest means. Fourth, it ends the assistance for campaigns that just don’t need it.
We urge city leaders to consider this proposal as a way to eliminate subsidies for well-to-do campaigns while providing assistance to candidates of modest means.
The Council ought to view $12,800 for what it is – a lot of money, and we urge Gilroy’s governing body to make sure it’s being spent as wisely as possible.
