Page One

Our national political system is in the grip of big money interests who flood the political class with virtually unrestricted donations, effectively shutting out all other citizens who are not well-connected professionals, or, in California, successful action heroes. The exorbitant financial costs of national and state-wide campaigns are seeping into the comparatively low-cost democracy of Berkeley. As local races demand more and more fundraising, residents who wish to add a diversity of voices and experiences to our roster of elected officials are being systematically shut out. On top these already rising costs, City Council is considering adding more expenses for candidates of all financial levels.  

When I moved to Berkeley in 1989 from Philadelphia, I was shocked at the openness and accessibility of Berkeley politics. Philadelphia city government is controlled by big money interests and the idea of becoming a part of the government is laughable for 99 percent of the population. Of course, Berkeley’s openness means there’s some exasperating speech and petty personal feuds which work their way into the political discussion, but that’s part of the face of real democracy. It may not be pretty and the meetings may be long, but the residents of our city are directly involved with governing ourselves. This makes me proud to live in Berkeley. 

One of the ballot proposals City Council is considering would increase the various fees and signatures each prospective candidate would have to submit in order to run for any office. Currently a candidate must submit 20 signatures of registered Berkeley voters and s/he is on the ballot. That holds for district elections (councilmembers) and city-wide elections (mayor, school board, rent board, and auditor).  

For district elections, some on the Council wish to impose a $150 filing fee (with $1 off for each valid signature collected), as well as at least 20 signatures from within the district. For mayoral elections, the Council proposed a $300 filing fee (with $1 off per signature). For the other three types of city-wide elections, the council proposed a $200 fee (with $1 off per signature).  

One councilmember stated she was in favor of also having candidates pay the printing costs of their candidate statement in the voting booklet, which is mailed to every registered voter by the city. Under this idea, the 2002 election would have cost every candidate running for auditor, mayor, school board director, and rent board commissioner $1,250. A candidate for City Council would have to pay $600 (city manager’s report to Council, Oct. 10-14). The fees would change based on the number of candidates and the printing costs each election.  

It is clear that incumbents, who have already gone through at least one fundraising cycle and may have old campaign funds available, will have a clear financial advantage over non-incumbents. Non-incumbents who are wealthy or who have wealthy connections/donors will also not be affected by these added fees. The candidates who will be adversely affected are the rest of us—the non-wealthy, non-connected citizens. The more poor and middle-class citizens who are shut out of local politics, the more disaffection and voter apathy will grow.  

The justification repeated at Tuesday’s special Council meeting was that these added fees would ensure that only “serious” and “viable” candidates will participate in our democratic system. The Council seems to have confused “seriousness” with “financially comfortable”.  

The ethical dilemma of incumbents framing the debate of who is “viable enough” to challenge them in future elections is obvious. It’s clear that some of the current councilmembers would be happy if only an elite political class, drawn from only the BCA or the BDC, would have the financial resources—from either personal wealth or from well-off campaign donors—to mount a campaign.  

One attraction of candidate fees is that the city would spend less to hold each election. Yet the amount the city saves is dwarfed by the cost to our local political system in dissuaded potential candidates and in increased voter apathy. Additionally, the Council is discussing changing the definition of a “plurality” from 45 percent to 40 percent and eventually implementing an Instant Runoff Voting system. Both of these potential ballot initiatives would drastically reduce expensive run-off elections, thereby saving the city much more money than $600 here or $1,250 there. Such fees are cheap to the city (after all, we face an $8 million deficit next year) but prohibitively expensive to the average low and middle income Berkeley resident.  

Our local political system is expensive and intensive enough to get involved with as it is, yet there is still room for non-connected and non-wealthy candidates to mount earnest campaigns for office. The Council should not change our system for the worse. 

Jesse Townley is a DJ at KALX and a longtime volunteer at 924 Gilman St.