CC Minutes - 02/25/02 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sarah Charlesworth, 2373 Pershing Street, said the resolution was necessary for the community. She opined that large campaign donations were at least perceived as corruption. Ms. Charlesworth commented that the $60,000 voluntary limit on mayoral races was too high. She added that candidates should be limited in donating to their own campaigns. Natalie White, 1128 Washington Street, quoted Abraham Lincoln on campaign finance reform and urged lower voluntary limits. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Councilor Fart related that only one councilor spent less on his/her campaign than he did. Having stated that, he commented that the resolution was not campaign reform, was not an ordinance, and was not constitutional. Councilor Fart raised concern that the word "corruption" was being used often. He expressed a desire to see proof of corruption in City Council campaigns or, failing that, a stop to the use of the word. He said it was insulting to himself and the other councilors. Councilor Kelly thanked those who testified. He went on to outline the language for the resolution that was proposed in a previous council work session. Councilor Kelly stressed that all of the proposed limits were voluntary. He noted that political action committees would be limited to the same contributions as individuals. Councilor Kelly noted that the City Attorney had said that voluntary limits were constitutional but mandatory limits were not. In response to a question from Councilor Meisner regarding the existing State voluntary campaign limit program and its difference to the proposed resolution, Kate Fieland of the City Recorder's Office commented that the state program was not a pledge but rather a way to require less paperwork from those candidates who spend less than $2,000. She said the candidate would file additional expenditure forms if they exceeded the $2,000 voluntary limit. Councilor Meisner raised concern that the council was rushing the process so it would apply to the May primary. He commented that the proposed pledge needed to specifically state that subsequent contributions and expenditure reporting would be required. He urged the addition of such language to the resolution. Councilor Nathanson said she would support some sort of voluntary limits. She raised concern that the resolution was being hurried so it would apply to the next election and noted that there were candidates who had already started accepting donations. She commented that implementing the resolution in the process of an election was changing the rules in the middle of a campaign and suggested that the resolution take place after the next election was completed. Councilor Nathanson also raised concern over the implications for a candidate who made the voluntary pledge while their competitors did not. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2002 Page 4 Regular Session