Foster City Council rejects campaign reform discussion

The council passed a motion 4-1 to deny a discussion on campaign financing reform or a potential ordinance on a future agenda item. Froomin, who introduced the item and wanted to see campaign reform, voted against it. Potential reforms suggested by Froomin include limits on individual and business donations, prohibition from receiving funds from a Political Action Committee, or endorsing organizations like a labor council, apartment association or political party. He also called for a maximum spending limit.

“We have been talking a lot about equity and about involving more people, and I think having a limit lower than what the state has would encourage more people to participate and level the playing field for those participating,” Froomin said.

Froomin suggested bringing the issue forward once a new city manager was in place so any new laws could be enacted by the next election in 2022.

Hindi, however, did not see a need to tackle the issue, given Assembly Bill 571 is now on the books. The state law went into effect Jan. 1 and imposed state contribution limits on local elections in cities without established limits. The individual contribution limit to city and county candidates under AB 571 for this year is $4,900 per election. AB 571 does allow for stricter limits if cities wish. Foster City does not have contribution limits, the city said, and currently defaults to state limits. It also regulates candidates’ financial transactions when it comes to campaign funding. Candidates cannot make campaign contributions to another candidate that exceeds the state limit or loan to their campaigns for which the outstanding balance exceeds $100,000. They can also carry over contributions from one election to pay for campaign expenditures for another election for the same position.

“On this item, I don’t really quite frankly see any necessity for us to tackle it,” Hindi said.

Vice Mayor Richa Awasthi agreed with Hindi and favored following the state law.

“In terms of prioritization and what staff has on their plates, from a timing standpoint also, I would not support this,” Awasthi said. “Last but not least, from a content standpoint also, what has been proposed in the staff report, I would not support that.”

Councilmember Patrick Sullivan noted the city had many other issues to consider, citing the search for the permanent city manager position, addressing the growing geese population and funding for a new recreation center to replace the William E. Walker Recreation Center.

“We are worried about a lot of important issues right now. I think to be fiscally conservative, I don’t think we can afford to waste any time on staff reports on anything that has to do with a new ordinance for campaign reform,” Sullivan said.

“It’s about leadership right now. It’s not about the politics. I think we need to move forward and get that ship sailing in the right direction,” Sullivan said.

Mayor Sanjay Gehani voted no but said he thought it would be a good topic for the policy summit in 2022.

curtis@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102