LOS ANGELES — This year, California voters will be asked to decide whether or not they support Proposition 4 — a proposition that, if passed, will repeal a prohibition against using public dollars in election campaigns.
Currently, tax dollars cannot be offered to politicians to help them run for office.
Supporters of Proposition 4 say that legalizing the use of public funds or matching fund programs, allows a more diverse array of candidates to run for office and that candidates will be able to focus more on policy and less on attracting wealthy donors. Opponents argue that public dollars should not be used to subsidize campaigns and that money will go toward political strategists rather than public services.
The California Clean Money Campaign supports Proposition 4, saying that “Proposition 4 is necessary because we need to give communities the option to pass small donor public financing of campaign systems,” the organization’s president and executive director Trent Lange said.
Lange added that the matching funds “allow candidates that qualify to raise the funds they need from small donors, rather than spending all their time on the phone talking to public special interest and wealthy donors.”
In California, charter cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and Berkeley are exempt from the ban and are allowed to operate matching fund programs. It is not required for candidates to participate in the matching programs in these cities, according to the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission.
Matching funds help “city candidates run their campaigns for elected office without relying on large donors or excessive fundraising. To receive funding, candidates must agree to participate in the program and must meet the program’s qualification requirements and spending limits,” according to the commission.
In Los Angeles, donations up to $257 for city-wide candidates are matched at a 6:1 rate.
Proposition 4 would not require cities across the state to institute the matching fund programs, but would allow them to. Opponents of Proposition 4 say that tax dollars are better used in other places, outside of political campaigns and that the law wouldn’t prevent candidates from accepting donations from private donors in addition to the public matching funds.
Mike Madrid, a fellow at the USC Center for the Political Future and a political strategist, is staunchly opposed to Proposition 4.
“Having taxpayers pay for campaigns is never a good idea under any scenario.” Madrid added, “There is too much focus on trying to meet matching fund requirements depending on the different laws. That money should be used for government services, patching up potholes, getting people off of the streets, feeding hungry people, building affordable housing, not for political campaigns.”
If Proposition 4 is passed, money used in campaigns cannot come from funds meant for education, transportation or public safety.