Friday, March 5, 2010

Ethics Commission Says No to Raising Donation Limits

Politics / People Robert Gammon — Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:00 AM

The Oakland Public Ethics Commission voted 3-1 last night against a proposal by City Attorney John Russo to double the contribution limits in city election campaigns. However, the ethics commission’s vote is not binding, and Russo’s plan will now likely be taken up by the Oakland City Council later this month. Russo’s proposal is generally viewed as a boost for the mayoral candidacy of Don Perata, a prodigious fund-raiser who has deep-pocketed donors, while being bad news for Perata's main opponent, Councilwoman Jean Quan, who is mounting a grassroots campaign.

Russo is recommending doubling the individual donation limit from $700 to $1,400, arguing that the old rules were based on two election cycles — a primary and general election — but ranked choice voting, which goes into effect this year, will eliminate the need for a primary. However, the ethics commission voted against the proposal after dozens of opponents of Russo’s plan sent letters of protest and came to speak out against it at last night’s meeting, arguing that it would increase the influence of big donors on city elections. The only commissioner to vote against the commission’s resolution to reject Russo’s proposal was Alex Paul, although his objection appeared to be based on procedural grounds.

It’s also unclear how the council will vote on the issue. Quan will surely vote against it, while Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente, a close friend of Perata’s, likely will vote for it. The issue will be particularly sticky for Councilwomen Pat Kernighan and Desley Brooks, who are both seeking reelection this year. If they vote to double the contribution limits, they likely will be accused of trying to rig the elections in their favor.

Tags: Oakland Public Ethics Commissio, John Russo

« Statewide “Day of Action… | Rebecca Kaplan Has a Shot at B… »

Comments (2)

Showing 1-2 of 2

Add a comment

Alex Paul's vote against the change was indeed on procedural grounds. He wanted to roll a no vote on all proposals for the evening into a single motion. It was very clear that he was against everything that was brought forward in the proposal.

Also, the only attendees at the meeting seemed to be Quan supporters. Many explicitly stated their support for Quan during their speaker time.

Jean Quan herself spoke at length against the proposal. Multiple times she acknowledged she had a vested interest in it's defeat because her Mayoral campaign would benefit.

Oddly, for a proposal that would seem to be a direct benefit to Don Perata, only one person involved in Perata's campaign showed up, and he didn't speak.

So Quan and friends showed up to work the system in their own favor, and Perata couldn't get his act together to do the same, despite what the press always says about his far reaching power and conspiratorial tendencies.

I'm unimpressed with both sides. We need a third candidate in this race.