CCMIN 04202021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Bryan Gillette reported he has run two campaigns in Pleasanton and discovered it is difficult to raise money and noted voter outreach is expensive through mailers and lawn signs. He believes the proposed limits are so low they would only benefit incumbents. He explained the current limits do not scare would-be candidates as the 2020 election had five mayoral candidates and seven City Council candidates. He noted the inherent advantages for an incumbent including public visibility and past campaigning experience. He explained such a low limit will reduce transparency because more money will be funneled into PACs and independent individual expenditures. He called for enforcement measures for the voluntary limits and expressed support for maintaining the $1 per voter expenditure limit. Mayor Brown closed public comment. Councilmember Arkin addressed Ms. Batcheller's point those who raise the most money do not always win and noted this is the main point of the item. She advised campaign finance reform is a national issue which filters down to the local level and expressed support for getting money out of politics. She stated she was a new candidate running for the School Board with $2,400 and won. She stated she won a City Council seat as a non-incumbent while spending $6,200. She advised both wins show candidates do not have to raise a lot of money to win a seat as a non-incumbent. She remarked she likely would not get to the $15,000 limit if she ran for re-election and noted raising $6,200 was difficult during the pandemic. She advised most of her donations were well under $1,000. Lastly, she reported she was able to make 350 yard signs, buy an ad in the newspaper, and make 10,000 fliers with her campaign funds. Councilmember Arkin remarked $55,000 is a ridiculous amount and understands the premise is $1 per registered voter but noted most households have more than one registered voter. She advised the $1 per voter standard is illogical for this reason. She noted she is the one who proposed the figures of $15,000 for a City Council election and $25,000 for a mayoral election at the last meeting but expressed support for connecting it to the number of registered voters at 50 cents per voter. She noted Pleasanton has about 48,000 registered voters. Councilmember Arkin praised staff for crafting the language for the item. She moved to adopt the staff's recommendations but amend the voluntary expenditure totals to $24,000 for a City Council election and $30,000 for a mayoral election. She noted this would be 25% more for mayoral candidates. Councilmember Testa echoed Councilmember Arkin's statements. She recalled experiences from her first campaign noting the fundraising element is discouraging to a new candidate. She explained running against an incumbent feels futile particularly in terms of fundraising and believes this is why there should be a limit on contributions. Councilmember Testa corrected her mistake from the last meeting and reported she spent $7,600 on her last campaign. She noted this was sufficient and allowed her to buy 500 signs and modestly advertise in the newspaper. She advised she did much of her campaigning in person and deemed this method more appropriate than spending a tremendous amount of money on ecologically unfriendly fliers. She explained bringing spending in line is an attempt to equalize the playing field. She remarked the PAC comments were ironic coming from those who received PAC support and noted she does not take PAC money. She remarked the comments were self-serving and disingenuous. She reiterated limiting money equalizes the field for new candidates. Councilmember Testa advised she proposed the 50 cents per voter limit at the last meeting looking for a reasonable midpoint. She remarked that $24,000 sounds like too much but expressed willingness to support it although she explained she would never spend that kind of money. She cited the comments about a mayoral candidate needing $50,000 every four years and decried setting mayoral terms at two years. She explained that being in a perpetual campaign mode detracts from the responsibility of the office and recalled the concept of a four-year mayoral term was put on the ballot in the past but failed. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 15 April 20, 2021