Politics: No on Prop 15

Props 13 (yes) and 16 (no) were fairly easy for me to decide.

I generally lean "no" as a default position. In the case of Prop 15, I was leaning that way and upon further reflection, I remain a "no" vote.

Prop 15 provides for public financing and campaign spending limits for the next two elections of the Secretary of State. However, it appears the agenda of the proposition is to eventually open the door to public financing for other races became clear in this KPCC Air Talk segment featuring both sides.

I believe the best way to finance campaigns is for people who support the candidate to donate money to the candidate. The idea of public financing goes against this basic premise. Even though tax payer dollars aren’t involved in this proposal because the matching fund is supported by registration fees on lobbyists, the idea of candidates receiving funds only from the people who support them is violated.

Campaign spending limits in exchange for public financing in the abstract sounds good but in higher profile races they are meaningless. If a candidate knows they can raise more money, they will opt out of the spending limits. Candidate Obama initially said he would abide by spending limits for the 2008 campaign. However, when he realized he could raise more money, he opted out.

Additionally, there is also a point of diminishing returns with campaign spending. For instance, are there going to be people who will NOT vote for Meg Whitman because she has spent so much money on the governor's race? Certainly, it is always better to have more money than less. However, at some point, if a candidate spends too much, there is voter backlash as some will feel that the candidate is trying to buy the office.

In smaller races, almost all candidates would opt for public financing because they could never raise enough money on their own such that opting out is in their campaign's interest. I think the decisive question is whether the voters want public financing of political campaigns. The theory is that the candidates would be less beholden to donors (special interests) who support their campaigns and races could be more competitive. Would this be actually true in practice?

I suspect that minimizing gerrymandered districts would have a greater impact on the competitiveness of elections.

As for being beholden to special interests, just how "blank a slate" is a politician? I think anyone who would go through the hoops needed to run for office have fairly formed views on the issues they will face. If you like their views, you vote for them. If you don't like their views, you think they are beholden to special interests and won't vote for them.

No on Prop 15.