Hundreds of years of discrimination in this country have contributed to a tremendous economic disparity between people of color and the white majority. As a result, as a community, people of color are at a huge disadvantage when participation in our political system is determined by money.
The importance of private campaign money to political success translates into a campaign finance system where candidates, and subsequently elected officials, are beholden to the interests that financed their campaigns. This makes it extremely difficult for low income and minority communities to hold elected officials accountable and to push a political agenda that will serve the needs and interests of those communities.
However, the influence of private money on the political system is something San Francisco can change. In the next few months, the San Francisco Ethics Commission and our Board of Supervisors will have the opportunity to level the playing field, so that candidates compete only on the strength of their ideas and content of their character, not the size of their wallets.
On Oct. 25, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, backed by a broad coalition of grassroots, labor and political organizations -- including the Power PAC, Service Employees International Union Local 790, CLAER, the Mexican American Political Association, Global Exchange, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the League of Pissed off Voters --introduced a proposal for public financing of the mayor's race, also known as Voter-Owned Elections.
Voter-Owned Elections is an alternative to the current system of raising and spending largely special-interest money to finance election campaigns. With Voter-Owned Elections, the public funds the campaigns of candidates who can demonstrate a wide base of public support by collecting a large number of small donations, and in exchange for public funds, candidates agree to limit their private fundraising. In this way, it ensures that candidates are accountable to the public, rather than private interests, and creates a situation where all serious candidates have enough resources to get their message to the voters.
"Public financing is the difference between being able to go out and spend your time talking with voters, meeting with groups ... (and) traveling to communities that have been underrepresented in the past, as opposed to being on the phone selling tickets to a $250-a-plate fundraiser," says Janet Napolitano, governor of Arizona, who was elected under Arizona's new Voter-Owned Elections program.
Currently, Voter-Owned Elections are working in places as diverse and far-flung as New York City, Los Angeles, Arizona and Maine. San Francisco already has a successful program in place for campaigns for the Board of Supervisors.
In Arizona alone, in the six years since the institution of Voter-Owned Elections, minority candidates running for office have tripled. In addition, New York City instituted Voter-Owned Elections and shortly saw its minority participation increase. Una Clarke, a Caribbean-American City Council member elected there in 1991, found that Voter-Owned Elections enable "a larger number and a more diversified group of persons, both economically and racially, to run an effective campaign and to win."
The Ethics Commission is set to vote on Mirkarimi's proposal on Dec. 19, before sending it back to the Board of Supervisors early next year. If the San Francisco Ethics Commission and the Board of Supervisors vote in favor of Voter-Owned Elections, one big step will have been taken toward ensuring that meaningful political participation and power is accessible to all, regardless of economic or social status. As a result, it will be our votes, and not our pocketbooks, that determine who represents our interests in San Francisco.
Nell Greenberg is coordinator for the VoteJustice Campaign for Global Exchange. Email her at nell@globalexchange.org.