On Thursday, April 24, 2008 Council will vote on campaign finance legislation. These are the basic points, which we are open to amending:

• Limits the amount any individual can donate to a candidate to $2,500 per year
• Limits the amount any Political Action Committee can donate to a candidate to $5,000 per year
• Does not limit how much of their own money candidates may spend their campaigns. However, if a candidate spends more than $250,000 of his/her own money, the contribution limit for all other candidates doubles.
• Limits the amount a candidate can raise in non-election years. A mayoral candidate can raise no more than $250,000, a controller candidate $100,000, and a council candidate $75,000.
• Prohibits any individual or business that contributes the maximum to a candidate from receiving any no-bid contracts from the City.
• Calls on the City Controller to place all campaign finance reports online
• Requires the Ethics Board to advertise the contribution limits and other aspects of the campaign finance regulations
• Includes the option of taking violators to court for an injunction
• Gives the Ethics Board the right to punish for violations

As seen in the two charts below, Pittsburgh’s proposed reforms are in line with those adopted by scores of cities across the nation.

Our contribution limits are often HIGHER than those of significantly larger cities. Even though campaigns in big cities are more
expensive, (costlier media markets, many more voters for campaigns to reach via mail and phone calls), these municipalities saw fit to impose lower dollar limits on their candidates.

Many cities go beyond just setting contribution limits. Little Rock, AK, (pop. 176,000), not only limits the time span during which
candidates can collect contributions, it also requires candidates to either return remaining funds to contributors or donate them to a non profit, after the election.

‘Conflict of Interest’ limits in Westminster, CO, (pop. 74,623), require that city councilors abstain from debating or voting on any
issues that directly affect any contributors who gave their campaigns more than $100.

Each city’s experience with Campaign Reform tells a powerful, positive story. Campaign finance reform in Tucson, (pop. 520,000), has caused an overall reduction in candidates’ reliance on TV advertising and fostered a more grassroots campaign culture. Chapel Hill, NC pioneered local campaign finance reform in 1995. Full disclosure of campaign contributions became a big issue in the elections, increasing local media’s coverage of both contributors and campaigns’ overallspending. The reform measures are a successful organizing tool for involving and educating citizens.

Size doesn’t matter: The voters in tiny Alta, Utah, (pop. 397), concerned by the influence of large developers in their community,
passed local campaign finance laws in 1997.

New Yorkers note their reform legislation, passed between the city’s 1996 and 2000 elections, increased both the number of candidates running, from 21 to 102 and the number of $250-and-under contributions, from 10,500 to 30,000.

The citizens of Fort Collins, CO, (pop. 100,000), boast the lowest contribution limit, $50. They are happy to report that, since its
passage in 1986 there have been no complaints about the law, or reports of candidates breaking the limits, nor has any candidate or citizen challenged the $50 limit.

PENNSYLVANIANS GET IT. We want Campaign Finance Reform. In 2005 Issues PA and the Pew Foundation polled Pennsylvanians on their attitudes towards campaign finance reform.

83% said that they suspect that some large campaign contributors are trying to buy influence.

73% favor new laws to restrict the amount of money individuals and political committees can give to candidates

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORMS DO NOT:

INFRINGE ON 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
US Supreme Court: Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
“Significantly, the Act’s contribution limitations in themselves do not undermine to any material degree the potential for robust and
effective discussion of candidates and campaign issues by individual citizens, associations, the institutional press, candidates, and
political parties. We find that, under the rigorous standard of review established by our prior decisions, the weighty interests served by restricting the size of financial contributions to political candidates are sufficient to justify the limited effect upon First
Amendment freedoms caused by the $1,000 contribution ceiling.”

PUT MUNICIPAL CANDIDATES AT A DISADVANTAGE
City office holders and residents seeking election to a county, state or federal seat, may establish a separate campaign committee for the position sought. This separate committee would not be regulated by the city’s campaign finance law, but rather by the laws governing the position being sought.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS

A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE
Nationally renowned civil rights advocate, Fannie Lou Hamer, believed reforming campaign finance laws is a civil rights issue. Her work continues via the nonprofit Fannie Lou Hamer Project.

The Project’s Director, says, “People are ’sick and tired of being sick and tired’ of this pay-to-play system. The current campaign
finance system restricts civic and political participation based on socioeconomic status. Therefore it has a disparate impact on
communities of color and the nonwealthy.”

A MEANS TO BUILD TRUST AND RE-ENGAGE CITIZENS AT THE GRASSROOTS, LOCAL LEVEL

“The National Civic League has always believed that all major social and political reform movements begin at the grassroots level, build momentum, and are eventually codified at the national level,” says National Civic League President Christopher T. Gates.

“There’s definitely a strong movement [for campaign finance reform] at the city level,” Carl Castillo, National Civic League. Castillo
estimates at least 90 cities have adopted contribution limits, spending limits or other reforms.

“Most people engage in public life at the local level and political reform must begin where people live,” Mark Schmitt, the Open Society Institute’s Director for Governance and Public Policy.

“Limiting campaign contributions requires candidates to extend their reach into the communities they seek to represent, exposing candidates to the broadest perspective of constituent views,” Tim Potts, Democracy Rising.

“The public sees that grassroots campaigns mean something, the financial and volunteer support ordinary people give means something,” Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter

Before Council’s vote on Thursday, April 24, please take a few minutes to contact Council Members to let them know you support Campaign Finance Reform and urge that they vote for this legislation. It’s simple, just click on their email below:

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
mayorcompl@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

City Controller Michael Lamb
michael.lamb@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 1, Darlene Harris
darlene.harris@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 2, Dan Deasy
dan.deasy@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 3, Bruce Kraus
bruce.kraus@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 4, Jim Motznik
james.motznik@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 5, Doug Shields
doug.shields@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 6, Tonya Payne
tonya.payne@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 7, Patrick Dowd
patrick.dowd@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 8, Bill Peduto
bill.peduto@city.pittsburgh.pa.us

District 9, Rev. Ricky Burgess
reverend.burgess@city.pittsburgh.pa.us