Vote NO on Measure C; Vote YES on Measure D

By David E. Durant

Measure C is NOT about curbing campaign finance abuses. It is an attempt to quell opposition and keep average people from mounting meaningful campaigns.

Measure D, on the other hand, would save $100,000 over ten years, would increase voter participation and would advance the cause of democracy in Pleasant Hill!

I oppose Measure C, which has been labeled as a "campaign reform measure." We have a set of State imposed limits on contributions already. I am not opposed to lowering those limits reasonably. Unfortunately, passage of Measure C (assuming it was not overturned by the Courts) would do so much more. It would limit the average candidate's opportunity to raise funds to mount a meaningful campaign and educate the voters. For example, it would PROHIBIT a candidate from obtaining, soliciting or accepting either contributions or loans from other people for the last three days of an election, but it would not stop an individual candidate from putting thousands of dollars of his or her own money into the campaign.

The State requires a good deal of reporting of candidate finances during an election -- which is very time consuming for candidates. This Measure would require extra reporting, which is unnecessary and further inhibits candidate campaigning, especially in the last two weeks of the campaign.

This Measure looks good on the surface, but attempts to limit contributions from ordinary people by requiring disclosures of CONTRIBUTORS' information at lower limits, and by PROHIBITING (I believe illegally) any person from making ANY expenditure "on behalf of" a candidate "without first obtaining the candidate's prior written approval." That means a friend could not purchase copy paper for my flyers (or even make and pass out flyers on my behalf) without prior written approval from me.

In short, Measure C just tries to do too much, and is bad policy.

I favor Measure D, which would once again join city elections with the school board elections (which the City Council approved in 1982). The current Council failed to move the City elections this year, like the school district, to the even-year system. Just like in 1982, moving the election would save a lot of money. In fact, it would save tens of thousands of dollars (over $100,000 over 10 years) that are better spent on improved government services.

Moving the elections now would also be more democratic, guaranteeing greater voter participation (voter turnout in even-year elections is 65%, compared to 25% in odd-year elections). Further, when turn-out rates are low, it is more difficult for candidates to get their message out, as many people are not inspired to go to the polls. If Measure C passes, and Measure D fails, fewer than 25% of the city will continue making decisions and citizens will be deprived of the opportunity to learn about new candidates who are not backed by established interest groups.

The opponents of even-year elections decry long, confusing ballots and worry that TV coverage of state issues will distract voters from Pleasant Hill's issues. I simply do not agree with the argument that we "confuse" the voters with long ballots. And, I do not buy the argument that absent separate elections the newspapers will provide inadequate information to voters about local issues. I have faith in our local electorate and our newspapers.

I trust that the vast majority of voters take their voting rights seriously and they prepare to vote. I trust that The Contra Costa Times knows its job, to inform and educate. I also trust that the newspaper dedicated to our city, The Pleasant Hill Record, will ensure that local issues are neither lost nor forgotten.

Finally, if our City Council operated more openly and with full disclosure, and the City used the even-year elections savings wisely, the City itself could better inform the citizens about what is going on in Pleasant Hill.