Earlier today we received a breathless press release from Jon Zaglin, a local Green Party member, announcing that Fifth District Supervisor candidates Patrick Cleary and Ryan Sundberg have reached a “groundbreaking agreement” to cap their campaign spending. This revolutionary accord was reportedly reached at a recent Green Party meeting after both candidates voiced their support for publicly funded elections. When a Green Partier in attendance suggested that Cleary and Sundberg could simply make a “gentlemen’s agreement” to cap their expenditures, the candidates agreed “without hesitation,” according to the release.
“The decision to cap their own campaign spending at a mutually agreed-upon level has the potential to transform political campaigning in Humboldt,” Zaglin opines.
Does it really? Reached by phone today, the candidates themselves were decidedly less starry-eyed on the subject. For one thing, they have yet to discuss, much less agree upon, any dollar figures. “A cap without a cap is not really a cap,” Cleary said. Then there’s the muscular sums already raised and spent in the race. (Sundberg hauled in and spent more than $95,000 and Cleary spent more than $71,000 through June.)
Here in the midst of the general election season, it’s not as simple as pinching off the money hose. “We like the principle,” Sundberg said, “but we both have obligations — I know I do.” Sundberg said he needs to go over it with his campaign committee, calculate his fixed costs and factor in promised expenditures on advertising and such.
At best, Cleary said, this was an agreement to agree.
“I don’t know if it will work or not,” Sundberg admitted. The two plan to meet sometime next week to discuss the details of their agreement agreement.
This article appears in Beer Me, Jesus.
The problem with voluntary spending caps among candidates is it doesn’t obligate those who support them to not spend any money on behalf of their campaigns. In the case of Sundberg, there is a lot of developer money in his corner. These people can run an independent media campaign. They can pay for polling and phone-banking and fund a GOTV effort on behalf of Sundberg. In some cases these expenditures don’t have to be reported. But even the portion that is reported does not go on the books of Sundberg’s campaign. So technically, Sundberg could comply with a spending limit but in reality twice as much could be spent trying to get him elected. It would be nice if wishful thinkers like Zaglin would look at the bigger picture when they talk about spending limits.
Of course if Zaglin is just looking to get some PR for one of his/Dave Cobb’s groups (Green Party, DUHC, Local Solutions), then this is a good stunt to draw attention to them and himself and it looks like Hank was happy to oblige!
These folks have no idea of what they speak. The answer is publicly funded campaigns and opening up the public airways for free air time for qualified candidates.
It’s a terrible idea. Why? Because candidates need to buy ad space and time. If all they had to buy was one ad in the Journal, which happens to be one of the priciest publications, maybe it would be a fine idea. But it’s more than that – there are buttons and bumper stickers and signs and ads for TV (multiple stations), radio (multiple stations),, and multiple papers.- the McKinleyville Press, The Arcata Eye, the Beacon, the Journal, the Ferndale Enterprise, and the most expensive of all, the Times Standard…and that’s just for starters.
Limiting campaign contributions is, in effect, limiting the candidate’s ability to get his or her message out, something they absolutely need to do since the various media have chosen to limit their coverage of the races to who got what from whom and one puff piece per candidate a week or so before the election.
I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why the media would be supportive of such an idea, when ad buys are their life blood.
It’s not like we have any million dollar campaigns around here. By any stretch of anyone’s imagination do you think people from out of the area would look at what is spent here and think too much is donated or spent? Hah. They would laugh you out of town.
Why would Cleary or Sundberg or any candidate want to cripple their campaigns’ ability to speak to the people they are asking to vote for them? And what will they eliminate? The Times Standard ad buy? Or the McKinleyville Press ad buy? The direct mail pieces? The payments to out of town campaign consultants?
Oh well, flyers tacked on telephone poles or left on car windshields are pretty cheap, maybe that’ll fit the new model.
And what will be repercussions if one of them reneges on the agreement? It’ll be too bad, so sad.
I agree, with both anon’s comments.
The Greens seem to be unclear on the whole concept of a spending cap, which would be to level the playing field.
While spending caps could have served a purpose during the June primary, having allowed a less well financed candidate to compete against those with more resources, what would be the point in this November run off election between two candidates of relatively equal funding capabilities?
Cleary is part of a “progrssive” slate with Neely and Gallegos, while Sundberg is independent. If both were independent then some cap would be fair, but with Cleary being bundled with Neely and Gallegos, it would be difficult to do since some of his overhead is spread between two other races.
Sundberg, “independent”.
Mmmph. He was a Republican one year ago and he’s taking Sonoma County water money for his campaign.
Sundberg less “independent” than Cleary? What a crock. Take a look at who’s giving money to Sundberg, then take a look at Virginia Bass’s donors. Exactly the same people. God, the lies some people tell.