Laserfiche WebLink
Kate Fieland of the City Recorder's Office reported that the 2001 State legislature adopted a new <br />law that allowed any candidate collecting or spending less than $300 not to report anything. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson agreed that reports were important, but she was not interested in establishing a <br />new reporting system, which would be costly and unnecessary. She wanted to retain the <br />contribution limit that candidates could contribute to their own campaigns as originally proposed. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked what happened if a candidate volunteered to participate in the program and <br />no other candidate did so. Could the candidate then change his or her mind? She asked if the <br />resolution could be revised to address that concern. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr thought the resolution created an unfair system. An incumbent with name familarity <br />already had an advantage over a challenger, and the only way the challenger could overcome that <br />advantage was by spending an inordinate amount of time or more money. The resolution also <br />created a situation where a candidate was penalized for exercising his or her right to free speech; <br />the opponent received an advantage on the proposed web page and the Voters Pamphlet. Mr. <br />Farr thought some form of campaign finance reform was needed, but the program that would be <br />created was not the answer. He asked what occurred if a candidate agreed to participate in the <br />City program and got the added benefits of the program, while another candidate participated in <br />the State program with a lower spending limit of $2,000. That candidate was actually doing the <br />more noble thing. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor indicated support for the resolution and concurred with the comments of Ms. <br />Nathanson. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 believed too much money was being spent on City races and supported some form of <br />campaign finance reform. He agreed with Mr. Meisner regarding the per-person council <br />contribution limit. He shared Mr. Kelly's interest in a provision allowing a candidate to loan the <br />campaign start-up funds. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 agreed with Ms. Nathanson that council candidates needed to be able to contribute more <br />to their own campaigns. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 questioned whether the day after filing should be the date of declaration. He also liked <br />Ms. Nathanson's idea of giving candidates a window of opportunity to withdraw from the program. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey observed that he had not heard a demand for the program from any citizens outside <br />the base group who offered the council comment. He was concerned that people would have <br />expectations that the City could not meet with the program being proposed. He asked about the <br />impact of independent expenditures: if the police union placed a half-page advertisement in the <br />newspaper endorsing a candidate, was that a campaign contribution or a political action <br />committee expenditure? Mayor Torrey said he would not oppose the resolution. He believed that <br />the program would not make a difference given the name familiarity advantage incumbents <br />enjoyed over challengers. The equity issue was not solved by the resolution. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly believed many of the questions raised in the discussion would be addressed by the <br />procedural rules implementing the intent of the resolution. He noted that, as written the program <br />started each election cycle, so unless that language was struck, a candidate choosing not to <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2002 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />