Health & Fitness
Is Campbell's Democracy for Sale?
Unprecedented amounts of money are now being raised outside of Campbell to run, and win, city council races.
Campbell's political races have entered a new era with the advent of campaigns raising large sums of money, mostly from outside Campbell, to elect candidates who may be the least qualified to manage our city’s affairs. Residents now need to ask, “Is Campbell’s democracy for sale?”
Recently, some members of the current city council proposed sweeping changes to a policy governing late night bars in downtown without first consulting either the their own city staff including the Chief of Police, the Downtown Campbell Neighborhood Association and other residents of downtown, the Downtown Campbell Business Association, or the Campbell Chamber of Commerce. These changes might have radically altered the balance of businesses in downtown by encouraging more late night bar activity and jeopardizing public safety in the downtown neighborhoods and beyond.
This may be the first indication that when financing a campaign for Campbell City Council with overwhelming amounts of money from outside Campbell, winners of city-wide elections may not feel they have to represent what is in the best, long term interest of Campbell or its residents. The question now becomes, “Whom do they really represent?”
Find out what's happening in Campbellwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Background
In 2006, one candidate, Evan Low, tested the idea that with enough money a candidate is almost guaranteed to win a seat on the Campbell City Council. His campaign raised more money than any campaign in Campbell’s nearly 60 year history. Evan Low won his seat, and in 2010, a few new candidates used the strategy pioneered by Mr. Low. These candidates bypassed the traditional strategy that candidates for council should be well known in town, should be firmly grounded in knowledge of how this city’s government works, should be open to public input, and above all should be motivated by doing what is right for Campbell in the long run, even if it means saying “No” to a campaign contributor. Well-qualified candidates who are not able to take their campaign fundraising to this much higher level can no longer compete successfully. Traditional campaigns, which have served us well for decades, may have been put to rest by the 2010 election.
Find out what's happening in Campbellwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
The 2010 Election
Nine candidates ran for three seats in November 2010. It is no surprise that the candidates who raised the most money won. What is surprising is how much they were willing to spend to guarantee a win. The three winners, who outspent their rivals heavily, relied mainly on frequent, direct mailings to voters, outdoor sign crews, phone banks, and media advertisements. Door-to-door contact with residents, representing a volunteer effort by Campbell residents and a mainstay of previous elections, has been relegated to a far less important role in campaigns. And local campaign contributors have seen the value of their small contributions pale in comparison to large donors’ gifts and large amounts of outside money.
Particularly disturbing is the ratio of money raised from citizens of Campbell compared to money raised elsewhere. For example, Jeffrey Cristina raised only 2% of his money from Campbell residents or Campbell-based businesses, a paltry $875. In theory, a candidate can raise no money locally and make no public appearances and still win the election. To be sure, some of these contributions appear to come from family members or friends, but more frequently it is coming from political party sources, non-Campbell businesses, and special interest groups with either a narrowly focused goal, or even a national agenda.
The remaining candidates adhered to traditional levels of fundraising and spending, (about $15,000 or less per campaign) and all of them lost. With enough money and the right message, almost anyone with professional political management can convince enough people to vote for him and insure a win.
Here are the total amounts raised and spent by the three winners of the 2010 election as reported on their Form 460 required by the State of California Fair Political Practices Commission:
CANDIDATE raised spent $ raised in Campbell
Evan Low $87,300 $53,300 $11,800
Richard Waterman $25,234 $23,100 $3,550
Jeffrey Cristina $43,700 $37,200 $875
The winning candidates also employed a new feature in Campbell political campaigns: paid, professional campaign organizers who crafted their candidate’s message to Campbell voters. These organizers rely on scientific telephone polling, among other methods, to guide their candidate’s message. Candidates can change their message as needed throughout the campaign to appeal to the latest findings of the pollsters.
Although Campbell City Council is a non-partisan office, all the winning candidates were willing to seek partisan endorsements and accept political party money. The amount of money raised may not reflect directly on the qualifications of the candidates, but it does create an un-level playing field, giving heavily financed candidates a very distinct advantage, and it forces all serious candidates to match this unprecedented level of fundraising. It will lead to the gradual marginalization of local voices, and leaves the impression that democracy in Campbell is for sale.
When candidates can tap into pools of money from outside Campbell, they can simply bypass Campbell citizens. They do not need to engage the average resident and explain their vision of how to govern Campbell. And they do not need to ask for a donation to build a campaign fund at the grassroots level. They can simply allow their professional campaign advisor to come up with a catchy phrase, which will resonate with enough voters to win the election. They are taking a chance that in the short time until the election, most voters will look no further than the latest bulk mail brochure, postcard, or “personal” letter from the candidate. They want nothing more than to have the voter simply remember a candidate’s name on election day. Name recognition wins elections.
Outside money, on an unprecedented scale, is now part of the new rules. Since the Citizens United decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, corporations are free to contribute unlimited sums of money directly to any political candidate or cause, and so called SuperPACs, (political action committees) are already spending that money all over the country to groom local candidates for higher office. So far, we have not seen SuperPAC money in Campbell, but there is nothing to stop them from attempting to buy local elections.
What can Campbell voters do about this?
• Be wary of any candidate with a thin track record in Campbell who is suddenly visible at election time.
• Don’t be fooled by candidates who offer glib or vague, general answers to your questions or concerns, or who respond with dogmatic answers to specific questions.
• Be alert when a candidate does not seem to take your concern seriously, or one who takes every concern seriously and promises to “work on it” if elected.
•Check online. Look into a candidate’s background. For better or worse, an Internet search reveals some very interesting results. Find out how long the candidate has been an “environmentalist”, or whether the candidate’s background makes him well suited to “end domestic violence.”
And one final thought...
Perhaps it is time for the City of Campbell to level the playing field and limit campaign spending for candidates seeking city council seats.
The opinions expressed here are the blogger's and not necessarily those of the local editor's or anyone affiliated with Patch.