Albany council to reconsider city's campaign finance law

Albany council to reconsider city's campaign finance law
By Shelly Meron
STAFF WRITER
Article Last Updated: 07/10/2008 12:39:43 PM PDT
Contra Costa Times

After a lively public debate, the Albany City Council decided this week to consider throwing out its campaign finance reform ordinance at its next meeting.

The decision comes amidst a debate about whether the act has been effective and easy enough for candidates to interpret, and whether it can be improved or should be done away with completely.

"Simplicity would be the best thing to have," said councilman Farid Javandel. "We should make it simple and easy. People shouldn't be guessing — 'Can I do this?'"

Councilwoman Marge Atkinson had stronger words, saying "I don't think this is functioning now," and called for the city to "start over."

The discussion came after the council received several recommendations from the city's Social and Economic Justice Commission on how the ordinance could be improved, including raising the spending limit per voter; adding a fourth expenditure filing — on top of the three already required by the state — for those who choose not to accept voluntary expenditure limits; and removing a prohibition on contributions from organizations and limits on contributions related to independent expenditures and general purpose committees.

The committee also called for having information and debates more readily available on the city's Web site and KALB, community access television and for establishing a task force that can delve deeper into complex issues.

City attorney Robert Zweben seemed
Advertisement

to agree with concerns expressed by others about the ordinance and recommended that the council get rid of it, and — if they wished — attempt to put together better legislation after the November election.

In a later interview, Zweben explained that "it's almost impossible to have campaign finance reform laws that are effective given the state of court decisions that essentially protect or authorize people to be able to spend money and to receive money from those who have rights to give money. You can try to nibble around the edges, but by and large there's not an effective campaign finance reform statute in this country, period. So, at most, to some extent you might get a symbolic ordinance."

Zweben warned the council this week that whatever group takes on the issue — whether a committee or a task force — it "will experience the same frustration."

Several public speakers also expressed concerns about the changes, and about the ordinance in general.

"I don't think the proposed revisions were very well thought out," said resident Clay Larson. "They pretty much eviscerates the current requirements and that's a concern. This whole thing needs to be looked at more thoroughly. All the proposed changes should be perceived with a thorough legal written review by the city attorney."

Resident Bob Outis said he had always been concerned about the ordinance, and is more concerned about the proposed changes.

"This ordinance has been used for mischievous purposes in the past. It has been proven to not be an aid to rational, fair, responsible elections," he said. "There's a state law that probably accommodates most of the concerns about full and fair disclosure and reasonable restrictions on campaign finance. Given the way the courts are going on these things anyway, we would be far better off to repeal this."

The discussion also brought back memories of the contentious 2006 election in Albany, which led to a suit filed against five candidates and two election committees, alleging they were violating Albany's campaign finance reform ordinance. The defendants included Joyce Jackson, Peggy McQuaid, Sally Outis, Caryl O'Keefe, O'Keefe's husband Alan Riffer, the Committee to Elect Caryl O'Keefe, and a committee named Concerned Albany Neighbors (CAN). According to O'Keefe, the suit was dismissed before the election.

An anti-SLAPP suit was then filed by Bob Outis, Sally Outis' husband, and another attorney. SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuits against public participation," and refers to suits filed to try and intimidate and prevent someone from participating in government and civic affairs, speaking out about public issues, and petitioning government officials about grievances.

Resident Robert Cheasty said the lawsuit was a result of the ordinance being unclear.

"The major issue with the last campaign had to do with a lot of confusion about what the election law says," Cheasty told the council. "I think that it's fair to say that part of the reason that happened was because the law is so poorly written and so confusing, that it was subject to multiple interpretations. The law should be clear enough so that a reasonable reading gives everybody the same understanding of it, and that's what you don't have with this law."

O'Keefe agreed that there are issues with the ordinance that need to be addressed, but said she is "hoping that when the (city) council comes back to this that they think hard before they disappear the entire act."

The council is expected to discuss repealing the ordinance at its next meeting on July 21.

Staff writer Shelly Meron covers Albany, El Cerrito and Kensington. Reach her at 510-243-3578 or smeron@bayareanewsgroup.com