When we talk about reforming the election process in West Hollywood, our first priority needs to be examining campaign finance reform. The cost of elections – even in a city the size of West Hollywood – has become untenable, and that has very real consequences for both candidates and voters.
As a governmental ethics and campaign finance attorney working in and around Los Angeles County, as well as a former member of the West Hollywood Campaign Finance Reform Committee, I have seen the effect that different approaches to campaign finance reform have had on elections, and I believe that there are some very specific steps that we can take to make the entire election process more transparent and accountable to voters.
1) Reconvene the Campaign Finance Reform Committee. When I originally served on the Campaign Finance Reform Committee, we were successful in reducing the campaign contribution limit from $1,000 down to $500. It is time to do that again. We can bring down the individual donation limit to $250, removing at least some of the big money from the election process.
2) Add ethics reform to Campaign Finance Reform. Without a strong reform of our governmental ethics rules – including disclosure requirements- campaign finance reform is meaningless. That is why I am proposing that the Campaign Finance Reform Committee be reconvened as the Campaign Finance and Ethics Reform Committee to ensure that any reforms that are enacted will be broad enough in their scope to create a change in the culture of our municipal government.
3) Create a Matching Fund system. By creating a matching fund system (funded via a Matching Fund Trust), the City of West Hollywood would match in-city campaign donations dollar-for-dollar. This would allow newer candidates to be more competitive with incumbents, creating a more level playing field. Candidates would need to agree on a spending cap, which could be lifted if Independent Expenditure committees (“I.E.’s”) exceed the cap. The City of Los Angeles has had great success with this type of system.
4) Require the electronic filing of campaign finance reports into a searchable database. This is just common sense. Electronic filing will allow residents to have real-time access to campaign finance statements, so that they can see where a campaign’s donations are originating.
5) Provide for comprehensive electronic disclosure of solicited charitable donations of $1,000 or more at all times. Charitable donations can have the same influential effect as campaign contributions, so their public disclosure is just as important as that of campaign donations. Again, this will provide real-time data to any resident or journalist who wants to see this information.
6) Require public, on-the-record disclosures of contributions and charitable donations received and/or solicited from applicants and their lobbyists before public hearings. Mayor John D’Amico has made this a voluntary practice, and it is time to expand this policy and make it mandatory. The public has a right to know if Council members have these sorts of relationships with individuals who have business before the Council.
7) Create a threshold for recusal for items 5 and 6 listed above. If any Council member has too many ties with a particular person or organization with business before the Council, it can create a conflict of interest or, at least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. In an effort to provide more transparency on the Council, it is important for the public to know that no Council member with a conflict will be able to vote on issues in which they have a personal stake.
8) Lobby for a change in state law to permit All Mail-In Ballot Elections in West Hollywood. This one simple step could greatly increase voter participation and reduce election costs. This idea has been used in Oregon and has helped to engage a much larger percentage of the population in the election process. Remember: when you vote, we all win.
While there are many more ways which we can reform the campaign finance and ethics rules in West Hollywood, I believe that the ideas listed above represent a concrete starting point towards making West Hollywood and our election process more transparent and accountable to the residents.
Joe Guardarrama is a governmental ethics and campaign finance attorney at Kaufman Legal Group and is currently a candidate for West Hollywood City Council. For more information on Joe Guardarrama for City Council, please visit: www.jg4weho.com
Voting for Matthew Ralston. He is the most sensible and can bring about real change within the City Council. Too much bickering, too many pockets being lined, can we please get back to what is best for the city? Let’s get some new people on the council who can work hard and fix what these people have so badly damaged. Thanks, Matthew, keep up good work. Quite inspirational.
Voters should be aware that ALL the candidates financial statements — including identification of who their donors are is easily available at the city’s election page: http://www.weho.org/city-hall/city-clerk/campaign-finance-statements
It is imperative that we not let people fool us into thinking that “reformers” are not also accepting big bucks from big business and real estate developers.
I think it’s worth a shot. Change is a comin’ to WeHo!
Could not locate a website for Mr. Guardarrama, Is the “G” in Guardarrama for Going, Going, GONE? Some of the candidates seem to commence campaigns and then vacate the premises. Very strange approach.
I wonder if John Duran would vote for any of these proposals. Common sense ethics reform has been repeatedly thwarted by the majority of City Council, most recently an attempt to bar lobbyist from running City Council member’s campaigns. Other basic reforms, such as barring contributions to non-profits where a City Council sits on the board of directors have been repealed. But these ideas are a good start toward rebuilding faith in City Hall.
sure joe! you, D’Amico and Rex will be a real joy to watch. god save weho.
I’m still trying to grasp why Mr. Guardarrama would write an op-ed advocating people conduct their campaigns in a manner diametrically opposite to the way his own campaign has been run. It would seem he has no respect for anyone who reads this and is being cynically insincere. Not trying to be negative. But, come on.
I welcome these suggestions but I have to concur with some previous commenters that actions speak louder than words. If Mr. Guardarrama had a track record as a reformer or as a community activist (or would address Sheila’s questions that many of us wonder about) I would have more confidence in his sincerity. So I remain agnostic.
By the way, re: Joe’s suggestion to lower individual donations from $500 to $250. It sounds good, but in practice I think it would further weaken the ability of individual resident donors to fund someone’s campaign sufficiently to compete at all. That’s because of the routine of big business donors bundling donations from all their family members, employees, etc. They would simply donate $250 times 10, plus donations to independent expenditure committees, while residents would flat-out be limited to $250 instead of the current $500. Many residents dig deep and donate $500 to give a candidate who will represent them… Read more »
Hi Joe: To expand on Shiela’s thoughtful question, I would like you to list what development projects you voted for and against while serving on planning commission.
Joe, it is extraordinary that your campaign platform is election reform when your work as an attorney is to advise all the entities that create the problems you highlight. Sounds like a fox-in-the-hen-house scenario. To practice a bit of ethics, perhaps you will finally be willing to answer these questions – which I have now asked you 4 times in the comments on WEHOVille over the last 3 ½ weeks. Context: When Joe resigned as Lindsay Horvath’s appointee on the Planning Commission at the PC meeting on March 4, 2011, he said, “I have resigned from the PC effective tomorrow… Read more »
Joe, is this a pathetically transparent attempt to explain how ALL of your money has come from lobbying groups, real estate developers, and other special interests? Why don’t you just post your resume and campaign contribution funds and title this Do The Opposite. This is insulting.