Now that ballots have been cast in the San Francisco mayoral election – although we'll have to wait a few more days for the results because of ranked-choice voting – it is time for city leaders to examine and fix public financing for candidates. The benefit of public financing is that it allows candidates to run who might not be able to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to effectively compete in a mayoral election. Under the current system, candidates who raised $25,000 on their own qualified for the program and whatever money they raised was matched, up to $900,000, if they agreed to cap spending at $1.5 million. The Bay Citizen , in a recent piece that looked at public financing, noted that nine of the 16 mayoral candidates qualified. By Election Day, the Ethics Commission reported that nearly $4.6 million in public funds had been given to nine mayoral candidates.
The problem is that not all those candidates' campaigns took off. In pre-election polling, especially once interim Mayor Ed Lee entered the race in early August, several of the major candidates were in single digits. Their chances of winning were slim. Yet if they dropped out of the race they would have had to repay the public money. It's a no-brainer that not a single candidate who accepted public financing ended their campaign, even if they were at 0 percent in the polls.
"If you don't have enough to pay back financing, you stay in the race, even though you can't win," Corey Cook, a political science professor at the University of San Francisco, told Bay Citizen .
The Ethics Commission's intention with mayoral candidate public financing was to reduce the influence of large donors, a worthwhile goal. But there needs to be a better way to have this financing.
During the campaign, former Supervisor and mayoral candidate Bevan Dufty acknowledged the problems with the current situation and suggested that disbursement of public funds should occur after the filing deadline. This year, candidates began receiving public funds months before the early August cutoff. Dufty's suggestion makes a lot of sense. By delaying the distribution of funds, candidates are forced to do their own fundraising in the months leading up to the filing deadline. Candidates with a base of support and a compelling message likely would do well, those without such a foundation might use the time to reconsider their bids for elective office. That's how many supporters and political action committees decide whom to support: candidates need to be qualified (which the major mayoral candidates were this year) but they also need to be viable. Part of determining viability is the ability to raise funds.
Most politicians detest fundraising and with good reason: it is time-consuming and hard to ask for money, especially in these economic times. But when you're running to be mayor of a major international city like San Francisco, there needs to be some distinction when it comes to accepting public money. Much of that $4.6 million given to the candidates could have been spent on health and social services, parks, roads, or other programs that have been cut to the bone during this difficult budget year. Instead, the city ended up shelling out money to candidates who knew they wouldn't win and stayed in the race anyway.
The Ethics Commission needs to seriously look at its public financing plan, and develop a policy for the next election that forces candidates to justify some level of viability before doling out millions of dollars.