HOME ACTION
ADVOCACY		 CALENDAR CITIZEN EDUCATION
VOTER INFORMATION		 ABOUT US JOIN US

Action / Advocacy
Our Newsletter
Recent Action
Our Local Positions
LWV of California
     Newsletter
     Recent Action
     Positions
LWV of the U.S.
     Newsletter
     Take Action!
     Positions
Site Map

The VOTER, April 2004, Volume 76, No. 7

THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

The candidates for the Monterey County Board of Supervisors spent a total of approximately one million dollars on the March election, with more to follow in the run-off for the 4th District County Supervisor seat in November 2004.

This race showed clearly the direction we are headed with unrestricted contributions. The perception, if not the reality, of undue influence is clear when special interests contribute large amounts to elect their chosen candidate. Too often those who spend the most money on their campaigns win the election. As Bill Monning said in his recent guest commentary in the Herald, "while the size of campaign contributions has mushroomed in county races, voter participation has gone down . . . voters become cynical and consider their individual vote to have less weight when measured against the access and influence that the large contributor will enjoy."

The recent McCain-Feingold Federal Campaign Finance Reform legislation (which was strongly supported by the LWVUS) limits individual contributions to $2000 and PACs (Political Action Committees) to $5000. Santa Cruz County passed a strong campaign finance ordinance in 1989. Meanwhile, there is NO election contribution limit in Monterey County!

At the Annual Meeting in May 1997, the LWVMP adopted our current position on County Campaign Finance Reform. The League supports:

  1. A Monterey County Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance with the following emphasis:
    1. Encourage voluntary expenditure limits in campaigns.
    2. Require frequent and timely disclosure requirements in campaigns with penalties for failure to meet deadlines or incomplete disclosure statements.
    3. Require campaigns to reject contributions several days before elections.
    4. Require disclosure several days before elections.
       
  2. An ordinance that would be similar to the Model Ordinance from the 1988 report of the California Committee on Campaign Financing.
     
  3. A limit on out-of-county contributions.
     
  4. Adoption of Campaign Reform Ordinances similar to the Model Ordinance (Item 2, above) by local cities in Monterey County.

How can we achieve this reform locally? Will the incumbent Board of Supervisors support campaign finance reform in the interest of fairness and leveling of the playing field for eligible candidates? Or do they prefer to support the special interests of their campaign contributors?

--Beverly G. Bean, President, LWVMP