Burlingame to up campaign contribution limits to $4,900

“I think people should be able to raise within the limits of the state,” Councilmember Donna Colson said. “The state has told us what to do around housing, the state has told us what to do around transit, sea level rise, lots of things, so why wouldn’t we comply also with the state regarding the elections.”

Colson, along with Mayor Ann O’Brien Keighran and Vice Mayor Ricardo Ortiz voted in favor of the increased contributions, while councilmembers Michael Brownrigg and Emily Beach voted in favor of the local rule. 

Keighran said though candidates shouldn’t require the larger contributions that will now be allowed, the elections process will remain transparent. If candidates are being funded by large donations from few sources, voters will have that information. 

“It’s really for our voters to look at who’s donating, how much is being donated to candidates and make that decision for themselves when they vote,” she said.

The vast majority of neighboring cities have adopted the state rule, she said.

Additionally, the move will shift contribution enforcement to the state, away from city staff where potential conflict of interests could arise, Ortiz pointed out. He pointed to large amounts raised in the past, adding that there were things “being done to skirt” limits.

“Just looking at how much we all raised, and how those limits applied and how that worked, some huge amounts were raised that are well beyond what’s needed,” he said. “I figure we just take it away from the city clerk who has personal and professional connections to us that might make it uncomfortable for her to enforce some of these limits that we’ve placed and just put it up to the state.”

But, according to Brownrigg, removing the city’s limit is a step in the wrong direction, and could lead to an unlevel playing field.

“I commend our council for so often being ahead of the curve, and on this one we were ahead of the curve. These limits were set in 2007 by a forward-looking council,” he said. “I think we were leading the pack and I’d like to see us stay as thought leaders and not followers.”

Beach shared a similar sentiment, adding that even if an election costs $50,000, that would mean five couples could fund a campaign. 

The intent of the council in 2007 to “establish fair contribution limits that will reduce any actual or perceived influence of contributions … while ensuring that candidates can raise the money necessary to conduct effective campaigns” can continue to be accomplished with the lower limit, she said. 

“I wish we weren’t headed in the direction of allowing $5,000 per individual,” she said.

District elections

Among discussion was the city’s ongoing process of switching to district elections from the current at-large system. Where voters previously had five votes, one for each councilmember, voters will now get only one vote with which to elect only the councilmember representing their district. 

With fewer voters for any one candidate, and those voters limited to small contributions, it could be harder to raise the necessary funds to run a campaign, Keighran said.

“I do not know the answer, but it is a concern that I have,” she said. “I think [increasing the limit] might help with that.”

Colson said the larger limits could also encourage more candidates to run, noting that some candidates could be uncomfortable asking for the amount of donation the smaller limit requires. And if candidates wish, they can still impose their own contribution limits on their campaigns, she said.

“More people running to me is better, you have more robust conversations,” she said. “I want to knock down all the barriers to people running.”

Legislator surprise

Assembly Speaker pro Tem Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco, the author of the state rule being adopted, expressed surprise at the council’s decision. 

“Cities have always had the right to set their own campaign contribution limits and that continues under my AB 571 law,” Mullin said in an email. “The intent and purpose of the law, however, was to encourage cities who did not have campaign limits at all, to create them. What Burlingame did is the opposite — they had reasonable limits in place and have chosen to remove them.”

Mullin said he authored the bill after some local races saw single contributions as much as $50,000.

“I’m just surprised that Burlingame, by a split council vote has chosen to remove their locally-imposed limits, especially in light of an eventual move to district elections, which is designed to actually lower the cost of running campaigns,” he said. “It is my hope that cities in San Mateo County that do not have local campaign limits in place pursue limits that are appropriate given the size and nature of campaigns in their respective communities.”

The council will take the item up for final approval during its next meeting in November.

corey@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200, ext. 105