Third wheel gains election power
May 12, 2009
 |
| Influence: Third-party groups spent more than twice as much money on campaigns in 2008 than in 2006. (Getty Images) |
SAN FRANCISCO — When you can’t join them, you join a committee.
Political contributions from third-party groups hit an all-time high during San Francisco’s 2008 supervisor races, according to a report from the Ethics Commission.
Instead of giving money directly to candidates for the Board of Supervisors, there are so-called third-party expenditures. This is when a person gives money to a group that then either works for or against a candidate.
A variety of committees and political groups, supporting both progressive and moderate candidates, contributed about $1.3 million to campaigns to either elect or discredit the candidate of their choice. That’s more than double what was donated in the 2006 races and about five times what was spent in 2004.
The spike may be due to a temporary lifting of a donation ceiling.
In November 2000, voters approved a public-financing program that capped contributions to committees at $500 per year. However, a preliminary injunction issued in 2007 on that measure means those limits are currently not enforced.
There were also more open seats in the November 2008 election than in previous years and the greater availability of public funds may have stimulated more competitive races, according to the Ethics Commission.
Moderate, downtown groups spent money opposing candidates such as John Avalos, Eric Mar and David Chiu, all of whom won their respective races. A similar amount, however, was spent by liberal labor groups supporting those candidates.
Even if the candidates who had the most money spent against them ended up winning their campaigns, the trend is likely to continue into the next election, according to political consultants.
David Latterman of Fall Line Analytics worked for supervisor candidate Claudine Chang and helped with campaigns in districts 1 and 11.
“I fully think that the trend is going to continue,” he said. “But it’s not going to be a question of how much you spend, but how you spend it.”
And whether negative or positive, candidates who were the subject of third-party expenditures felt they did not work to their advantage, according to the report.
One respondent said public financing was a “handicap” because third parties held back expenditures until it would be too late for candidates to respond. Another said third parties were forced to spend because “unqualified candidates got public funds.”
Politics of money
The amount of independent expenditures flowing into San Francisco supervisor races has been on the rise.
Independent expenditures
2002: $261,906
2004: $251,201
2006: $543,063
2008: $1,309,097
Top recipients
District 1
Supporting Opposing
Sue Lee $116,147 $40,512
Eric Mar $194,168 $177,738
District 3
Joe Alioto $74,161 $0
David Chiu $118,583 $135,377
District 11
John Avalos $139,553 $150,207
Ahsha Safai $61,155 $21,475
Source: Ethics Commission
bbegin@sfexaminer.com
