San Antonio plans to revisit the relatively low campaign contribution limits it places on candidates running for City Council and mayor, currently set at $500 and $1,000 respectively per election cycle.<\/p>\n
The city\u2019s Ethics Review Board just completed a comprehensive review of San Antonio\u2019s Municipal Campaign Finance Code in 2024, and didn\u2019t touch those limits.<\/p>\n
But San Antonio just moved to longer, four-year terms<\/a> when its 10 council members and mayor were sworn in last June<\/a>. <\/p>\n Under the current rules, that means individual donors who\u2019ve already given the maximum contribution to the current council members couldn\u2019t do so again until June 30, 2028 \u2014 the beginning of the election cycle for a November 2029 municipal election.<\/p>\n Many donors have already maxed out what they can give for this four-year cycle, ahead of an election where Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones will be on the ballot, and three of her biggest council rivals, Sukh Kaur (D1), Marina Alderete Gavito (D7) and Marc Whyte (D10), are all term-limited from seeking a full four years in their existing roles.<\/p>\n \u201cThe campaign election cycles changed from two years to four years, and where we\u2019re seeing the impact is specifically in the Municipal Campaign Finance Code, and that\u2019s on contribution cycles,\u201d said Compliance Auditor Maria Perez, who serves as the official liaison between the city and its Ethics Review Board. <\/p>\n \u201cContribution cycles run pre-election, post-election and runoff, and now that\u2019s spread over four years versus two years,\u201d Perez told the board Monday night. \u201cIt has impacted campaign funding, and it\u2019s something that the board may want to think about.\u201d<\/p>\n 6 biggest takeaways from the last semi-annual campaign finance reports<\/a><\/p>\n The Ethics Review Board is comprised of 11 members who are appointed by the council and mayor. <\/p>\n Based on their comments Monday night, Perez said staff has been given the green-light to start formulating a process for them to again review and propose changes to the Municipal Finance Code this year.<\/p>\n \u201cWe just did this full overview. I don\u2019t know that we really need to do another full overview, [versus] just target those sections,\u201d she told the board. <\/p>\n But a panel with many new members since then will have the ultimate say over what they reopen and how they approach making the contribution limits match the new terms.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m going to bring it the board and see what we think about it,\u201d Ethics Review Board Chair Patrick Lang said in an interview after the meeting. \u201cWe don\u2019t want to stray too far from where we\u2019re at, in my humble opinion.\u201d<\/p>\n A rise in PAC spending<\/p>\n San Antonio\u2019s relatively low contributions limits were intended to level the playing field for candidates from different parts of the city, and with varying degrees of wealth within their networks of supporters.<\/p>\n But the policy came under scrutiny in the last city election<\/a>, when some political watchers blamed it for giving outsized influence to PACs and self-funders. <\/p>\n 2025 mayor\u2019s race among San Antonio\u2019s most expensive<\/a><\/p>\n PACs aren\u2019t subject to the same individual donor limits, and candidates can give unlimited personal contributions to their own campaigns.<\/p>\n After Monday\u2019s meeting, Lang said concerns about the rise in PAC spending have some validity. But at the same time, he said, he doesn\u2019t believe higher contribution limits will make it more fair. <\/p>\n \u201cPACs are an issue, but that\u2019s something that we can\u2019t police from here,\u201d Lang said. \u201cIt doesn\u2019t matter if we raise [the contribution limit] to a million dollars, there\u2019s still going to be PAC spending.\u201d<\/p>\n All changes would have to be approved by the full board, then voted on by the council as well.<\/p>\n Mandatory ethics training<\/p>\n Based on comments at Monday\u2019s meeting, city staff will also start helping the Ethics Review Board draft a potential policy requiring ethics training for elected officials. <\/p>\n Monday was the first time the board had met for regular business in over a year, Perez said, due to the slew of ethics complaints it had to consider against candidates and elected officials during the 2025 municipal election. <\/p>\n In total, 10 complaints were filed, and five were considered by the board or a panel of its members, she said, \u201cwhich was a huge number for us.\u201d<\/p>\n In many cases, the Ethics Review Board wound up referring council members to individual ethics training sessions \u2014 something they were supposed to have already reviewed and completed on their own. <\/p>\n Lang said the board had grown frustrated with council members breaking rules they were supposed to know, so it planned to look at updating the city\u2019s Ethics Code to mandate in-person training.<\/p>\n That way, he said, it would have a record of when council members received and signed off on the policies, and could have that \u201cammunition\u201d handy when members say they\u2019ve been blind-sighted.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s not that we want to play gotcha,\u201d he said. \u201d \u2026 [But] as you go along, you\u2019ll see the same violation from the same people with the same excuses.\u201d<\/p>\n In September, the board cited\u00a0former Mayor Ron Nirenberg<\/a>\u00a0for using city resources to create social media content. Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez (D2) was sanctioned <\/a>in January of 2025 for his handling of a zoning issue.<\/p>\n