Extra

Public Campaign Financing in Berkeley: “Party at Magofna’s"

Steve Anderson
Saturday October 20, 2018 - 04:28:00 PM

Subsidizing corporate interests to influence campaigns; collusion between candidates at public expense

This is the first election in Berkeley with public financing of campaigns. If candidates limit their contributions to $50 (instead of $250), Berkeley will provide $6 in matching funds (using taxpayer dollars) for each $1 dollar contributed up to a total campaign cost of $40,000 for a City Council race.[1]

How is this working so far in Berkeley? We now have a first look after the candidates for Berkeley’s four City council races filed their Form 460 with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The good news is that the vast majority of reported campaign expenditures are for valid costs such as voter software, campaign signs, mailers, and the obligatory bagels and pizza for volunteers. The bad news is the lack of safeguards in the program has encouraged wasteful and/or self-serving expenditures, has not taken the effect of big money out of politics, and has allowed candidates to gang up on a candidate. The following focuses on District 4.

Party at Magofna’s

The use of public campaign funds should serve as a budget on training wheels for a candidate. How they manage $40,000 of the public’s money is an indication of how they’ll manage Berkeley’s $300 million budget. The honor of the most self-indulgent use of campaign funds clearly goes to Greg Magofna. His “campaign kickoff” luncheon cost the public $1,491.59[2], four times more than the next candidate, and 100 times the $14.25 for “Pasta and chips for fundraising events” Alfred Twu reported in District 8.[3] To this add $483.58 to buy a “personal printer and toner supplies”[4], just under the $500 limit for capital expenditures.[5] Even if he doesn’t get any votes, Greg will get to keep the printer. No wonder Greg is being quoted in Berkeleyside as being “grateful for the public matching funds.”[6] 

Similar to Donald Trump, Greg seems to want to plaster his name on everything. While every other candidate sends their volunteers out with campaign literature stuffed into recyclable Target and Trader Joe’s bags, Greg spent $687.18 for custom-designed tote bags emblazoned with his name. While most every other candidate has opted for cheaper peel-off campaign stickers, only the metallic ones will do for Greg ($1,021.79, including the roughly $300 cost for a banner).[7] Add in $203.60 for business cards[8] (Krishna Copy will give you 500 for $39.95) and the excess and ego become apparent. 

Failing to Get Corporate Money Out of Politics 

The ballot arguments in favor of Measure X1 adding the public financing option for Berkeley had a goal of getting special interest money out of politics. 

For the candidates that have run before (such as Kate Harrison and Ben Gould), their donor lists show a significant overlap of persons who contributed to both their last and current campaign. Thus, a significant number of donors who previously gave the candidates $250, could now give them only the $50 maximum contribution, and have it matched with $300 of public campaign financing. 

An unidentified side-effect of this is that corporate interests, who previously had to pony up the full $250 contribution, now are only giving $50 and the public is not only picking up the $200 difference, but throwing in an additional $100. The public is directly subsidizing corporate interests seeking to influence and promote their favored candidates. 

The degree of “special interest” money in the candidate’s Form 460 filing is telling. Pro-development candidate Ben Gould for example has received $550 from developers and real estate interests matched by $3,300 of public funding. A recent Berkeleyside article, with 3 of the 4 authors being contributors to Ben Gould’s campaign, seemed to focus on the City Council’s opposition to development projects from one of these developers. Greg Magofna’s campaign shows a similar pattern with $500 from these interests. Combined, the public is now paying upwards of $6,000 for real estate interests to donate and try to influence campaigns. Although stating he is supportive of rent control, Greg has taken money from Lakshmireddy Lakireddy of Everest Properties, one of the largest landlords in Berkeley. In contrast, Kate Harrison had no contributions from developers or real estate interests. Igor Tregub, the only candidate running for Council who has not chosen to take public financing, also has refused to accept contributions from any entity (such as developers) that would come before the Council. 

Tag Teaming Kate Harrison  

Another flaw in the campaign finance laws is the concern that two different candidates each file for public financing, and then coordinate their campaign against a third candidate. A September 5, 2018 complaint to Berkeley’s Fair Elections Commission stated: “In District 4 there are two candidates [Ben Gould and Greg Magofna], who both represent the same developer interests and basically have many of the same endorsements. The candidates are running a tag-team - endorsing each other - while getting public financing. What this allows them to do is get twice the public financing giving them a 2-1 money advantage over their opponent [Kate Harrison].” 

This conclusion seems supported by the inter-twined nature of Ben Gould’s and Greg Magofna’s campaigns. Ben has donated to Greg, along with his campaign manager Alex Sharenko, and Greg Magofna has returned the favor. Twenty-seven donors have given to both candidates. In what seems an orchestrated campaign, although the Berkeley Democratic Club has endorsed Ben Gould, many of their members such as Lori Droste, Laurie Capitelli, Darryl Moore, and Rashi Kesarwani have given to both. 

This tag teaming is apparent not only in the Form 460 forms but also in campaign strategy. Ben Gould and Greg Magofna recently sent out a joint mailer essentially endorsing each other. Ben Gould has also been seen at endorsement meetings, such as at the East Bay Young Dems and Asian-American Pacific Islanders, urging the committee to endorse his supposed opponent. Apparently, before these groups Ben does not think he is qualified for the job. 

Conclusion 

While noble in purpose, it is not clear that public financing is working as intended. The argument in favor of the measure in the voter handbook in 2016 pointed out that more than half of Berkeley’s campaign funds came from fewer than 350 households, a minute percentage of the city’s residents. However, the absence of safeguards in use of public funds can lead to its abuse: many of the same persons who gave before continue to give, and special interests continue to contribute, although now the public is matching these contributions six to one. More troubling, candidates who accept public financing with the best intentions may end up harming their chances as opponents game the system to skirt campaign limits. 

And Let’s Not Forget the Aprons 

Perhaps the most unique, and perhaps most effective, reported expenditure is from Alfred Twu. His campaign spent $360 for campaign aprons, worn by his campaigners regardless of gender and creating a personalized and distinctive campaign image. This campaign effort was so successful that a second $360 order for more aprons soon followed. As Alfred is running a bare bones campaign he seems to be keeping a tight rein not only on the purse but also the apron strings. 

 


[2] Magofna – Form 460, p. 32
[3] Twu (Jan 1-June 30) Form 460, p. 17.
[4] Magofna - Form 460, p. 30
[5] From the Impartial Analysis pf Measure X1: “Payments from the Fund would be limited to direct campaign purposes, and could not be used for…capital assets of more than $500 with a useful life beyond the end of the election https://ballotpedia.org/Berkeley,_California,_Funding_for_Public_Campaign_Finance_Program,_Measure_X1_(November_2016)
[7] Magofna Form 460, p. 31
[8] Magofna Form 460, p. 30