Front Page  »  

SLO may give voters $20 to spend on candidates

March 17, 2016

moneyOn a 3-2 vote, the San Luis Obispo City Council endorsed the idea of distributing city funds to voters who could then donate the money to council candidates. Under the proposed scheme, city voters would receive $20 “democracy vouchers,” which they could only give to candidates who refuse to accept conventional campaign contributions.

The democracy voucher idea was first brought to the city by San Luis Obispo farmer William Ostrander, currently a candidate for Congress. Supporters of the proposal say it would increase voter participation in city elections and would prevent money from outside of the area swaying local voting.

On Tuesday, the council voted to direct city staff to prepare policy, legal and operational plans for a democracy voucher program. Councilmen John Ashbaugh, Dan Carpenter and Dan Rivoire voted in favor of the program, while Mayor Jan Marx and Councilwoman Carlyn Christianson cast the dissenting votes.

Carpenter said the proposal would level the playing field and lead to more candidates running for city office and more people engaged in voting. Marx said the democracy voucher idea was a solution in search of a problem, and people who support it should go through the ballot measure process to prove it is something citizens want.

City staff estimates the voucher program would cost $636,754 to $650,254 in the first year and $240,500 to $377,440 annually thereafter. The annual estimate factors in both election and non-election years.

Funding for the program would likely come from the city’s general fund.

Cal Poly political science professor Michael Latner, who is a proponent of the voucher program, said administrative costs could be lowered significantly.

There are currently about 25,000 registered voters in San Luis Obispo. It is unclear how many would participate in the voucher program.

Citizens Congress, the organization backing the plan, estimated voters would spend 20 percent of the voucher funds issued.

Existing city campaign finance rules prohibit donors from contributing more than $300 to a single campaign.

The proposed democracy voucher ordinance would set $50,000 as the maximum amount a candidate could receive in city election funds. The donation cap is three times the amount raised by any one candidate in the 2014 council race.


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


27 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What a sick town. When I discovered the Central coast back in the 90’s I was ecstatic. I was naive and didn’t realize the level of blatant ridiculous behavior that was accepted. the first thing that tore my heart out was in Cayucos, they removed a Palm tree at the Sanitary district. Paid someone to haul it off. he intern charged someone for it. The reason was “it wasn’t native to the area” Neither was a single house, garage or orange tree but we must rid that One tree which i never followed it’s final location but I bet there were some greased palms.


Then the enormous eyesore Surf store. 2 story behemoth but no mention of it being native to modernize the city. I’ve seen business come and go in Slo and I noticed more and more national accounts squeeze the locals out. Someone votes on that. An example. We stop in Teaberry all the time. We notice down the street, someone has opened a national chain yogurt shop. Really? I have never met the owner and don’t know him but what’s next? Nothing but a for every dime buncha whores. Anything for that last squeeze on the wallet. And the Supervisors and the gift card scandal. Why would someone even know to invent that story if it wasn’t true?


Talking to the older people describe what it was. It’s sickening that national chains can eat the place alive and you don’t get a benefit. I don’t. Just the money exchangers.


0

You see the national chains because they are too large and slow to take quick notice of how they’re being squeezed for rent. It’s the rental rates that kill mom & pop, and every time a building changes hands, rates go up. That’s why there’s (occasionally) a crash in real estate: can’t go up forever, though we are trying in SLO.


0

60 Minutes is gonna have a field day with this latest scheme


0

So the incumbents are voting to give the voters vouchers that can be spent on themselves. And they’re spending over $600,000 of our money to do this. This is so obviously a waste and nothing but political theater.


0

Boondoggle for a lot of reasons


0

How about you guys fix the traffic problems over by Costco!! SLO City Council must be smoking crack these days… WTF is going on in their minds???


0

What are you talking about? the City paid the Wallace group a fortune for a traffic survey and engineering of a smooth flowing street and signals. Cant wait to see the Atascadero Traffiic “circle Jerk” they designed for Walmarts arrival.


0

I was thinking the same thing when I read your reply! Do they really have those kinds of funds to throw around like that?


0

They have been smoking it for quite awhile now and drinking kool aide with it!


0

This is utter nonsense.


First, our city elections ARE corrupted by big money, but that’s because the current council minus Rivoire raised the contribution limits and did away with other legal protections the city has had for decades just before the last election.


Second, the people sponsoring this don’t know much about SLO elections. If Ostrander is a “farmer,” does he even live in the city? Maybe this has more to do with his congressional campaign than anything else.


Third, what they propose is ridiculous. You can’t run a citywide campaign for less than $10,000, and all the incumbents have spent more than that. To get $10,000 under their plan, a candidate must have 500 contributors! No campaign has, or will have, 500 contributors. So, nobody who wants to get elected will use public funding, only those who want to put themselves on display as unsuccessful candidates will use it. The public financing scheme leaves the existing corrupt election finance system in place, and that’s the one that will prevail.


Fourth, if election funds are limited in this way (I doubt they will be), independent expenditure committees, which are beyond the city’s election regulations’ control, will become the chosen method of conducting election campaigns.


Fifth, if the city has $650K to burn through to set this up and the huge on-going general fund costs to continue it, why don’t they do something people want with that money, and why don’t they refund Measure G tax dollars to residents since clearly they’ve got money to spare?


This is a silly feelgood solution to no problem whatsoever.


0

Or how about fix the billion dollar underfunded pension system?


0

You are all wacko, just what I want tax dollars spent on.


0

How about they don’t take the $20 from us in the first place and we can choose to do what we want with our own money?


0

Delightful! People have had enough of the bought-and-paid-for candidates. The Giant awakens.


0

Still does nothing for large contributors and/or PACs. Still, maybe it will make some people feel good. Not sure how I come down on this; on the one hand, if they have enough of our money to “give back” some to spend on them, then maybe they have too much of it in the first place?


0

To tell the truth I’m not sure either. I do think it’s a signal though that people are tired of the corruption that big money buys.


0

But “the people” in this case taking this brave stand are our corrupt city council! So what is one to think? Surely not that the council wants to clean itself up, since they could just do that without giving away tax dollars to candidates!


0

Big money and corruption are never going to go away, that is and always has been the nature of mankind. Think about $650,000 being flushed down the toilet. First, 65% of the residential properties are rentals. Second, the 65% will take their $20 downtown on Friday night. Third, this is a scam on the taxpayers because most of us don’t want you anyway and would vote for more intelligent people but unfortunately, they all have real jobs and don’t have time to smooch with corruption.


Keep the damn money and fix the streets. No brainer!


0

OH, it’s much crazier than you think. Everybody gets a debit card that can only be cashed by a campaign, so no boozing on the taxpayers. But to make all those debit cards and distribute them costs $50K, and that doesn’t count the money that’s on them. This is a plan from Mars.


0

I don’t know if money is 100% to blame for corruption. Sure, it’s an easy target, and we’re very conditioned regarding it; however, what is money really doing? Propagandizing to the ignorant. Is not ignorance the issue, then? Money is only taking advantage of that.


For instance, no amount of money or propaganda will ever have me thinking that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are great choices for president. Sorry to all the heads-in-the-sand / angry people, but that’s the honest truth of how *I* feel about that – so, can either of them spend enough money to convince me to look past all of there well-documented failings? Not at all, so for me, campaign money is not an issue; for me, the issue is: we have too many ignorant people voting.


0
1 2