Playing with fire: Supervisor Jane Kim says she’s willing to take the risk of The City being sued over its public financing laws.
Well, she is entitled to other people's money, isn't she?
Posted on 09/20/2011 10:10:13 PM PDT by SmithL
Supervisor Sean Elsbernd asked his colleague Jane Kim a worthwhile question at Monday’s Rules Committee meeting: “What is more important to [our] communities? Having dollars available for services? Or standing on a principle that has been deemed unconstitutional?”
Kim, for the record, prefers the latter, but we’ll get back to that.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down part of Arizona’s system of publicly financing candidates for office. And it just so happens that San Francisco’s local public financing system basically has that same unlawful provision. So, Supervisors Elsbernd and Mark Farrell have proposed a perfectly rational solution: remove the unconstitutional element of our law before we get dealt another stunning and expensive loss in court.
Basically, we can no longer make public financing of one candidate contingent on the amount of money raised by another candidate. If you like public financing, the good news is that we don’t use that trick very much. Our public money is doled out to candidates almost entirely on the basis of what they raise for their own campaigns, regardless of how the other candidates are doing. However, after publicly financed candidates hit a certain limit — for mayoral candidates, this year it is $1.475 million — they can get additional public money based on the amount raised by the opposition, whether by a candidate or a committee. This “opposition matching” is what the Supreme Court proclaimed unconstitutional.
The new proposal by Elsbernd and Farrell would allow publicly financed candidates to continue to raise money for themselves after they hit the $1.475 million mark, but would cut off additional public money.
Yet instead of viewing this proposal as it is — a simple move to avoid a costly, hopeless lawsuit by stopping the flow of taxpayer money to the richest candidates — Kim acted like this was a general assault on public financing. It was nothing short of infuriating to watch a Stanford-educated official say, “This is litigation that I think is important for many of us to see forward in terms of what the ruling means for the future of public financing.” (Translation: Let’s sue.)
To which Elsbernd responded, “I think you are grasping at straws to stand on a principle that is going to end up costing The City hundreds of thousands of dollars and I think, as a fiduciary, that is a big mistake.”
Replied Kim, “It’s a risk I’m willing to take on this particular issue.”
The problem is that it’s the taxpayers of San Francisco who are taking the risk, and not Kim.
The full Board of Supervisors will vote on this proposal today.
Playing with fire: Supervisor Jane Kim says she’s willing to take the risk of The City being sued over its public financing laws.
Well, she is entitled to other people's money, isn't she?
I recall Jane Kim unwilling to recite the pledge of allegiance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.