Campaign spending limits can’t keep big-money backers away

Rules allow PACs into local politics



 

 

Campaign spending rules are intended to help level the playing field for candidates seeking local office, but some say expenditure limits are also about public perception.

While the rules work to ensure an individual contributor can’t buy a candidate’s way into office, the candidates themselves, as well as deep-pocketed outside interest groups, don’t have to abide by limits.

Common in state and federal elections, big spending by political action committees, known as PACs, has largely stayed out of county races. Yet there are signs that may be changing.

As the 2022 election season begins and candidates enter the ring, The Acorn looked at the rules governing campaign spending for the Ventura County Board of Supervisors to understand campaign finance limits.

“Elections are the most precious things we do as Americans,” said Mark Lunn, Ventura County clerk-recorder. “We care about preserving the sanctity of the process, and expenditure limits are part of that process.”

Before accepting any contributions, Board of Supervisor candidates must decide whether to adhere to voluntary expenditure limits. The limits restrict the donations of individual contributors but, due to the First Amendment, they cannot restrict candidates’ personal contributions or contributions from PACs.

All three candidates for the District 4 seat—Dean Kunicki, Janice Parvin and Bernardo Perez— chose to accept the limits, according to public records.

Expenditure limits are intended to ensure that each candidate has an equal opportunity to succeed regardless of financial resources, said Dana Lee Baker, chair of political science at Cal State Channel Islands.

“They exist as part of ongoing efforts to maintain a sense of fairness in elections,” she said.

Baker said large individual campaign contributions could lead to favoritism and corruption. Races can become less competitive as they become more expensive, she said. For the June 7, 2022 primary election, the limit is $235,000 with a ceiling of $750 per contributor, per election rules. The limit increases to $295,000 for the Nov. 8 general election.

If candidates do not accept the expenditure limits for the election, the contributor limit drops by half, to $375. Should a candidate not accept the expenditure cap and spend over 20% of the allowed amount, none of the candidates are required to adhere to the spending limit.

The ordinance states that the limitations do not apply to candidates’ personal campaign loans or to independent expenditure committees, a type of PAC, which can contribute large amounts of money for or against candidates.

In 2020, Kelly Long won reelection to the Board of Supervisors. She accepted the voluntary expenditure limit and raised roughly $130,000 in her campaign for the District 3 seat.

However, a political action committee backed by the oil industry spent more than $808,000 to support her and Jess Herrera— a candidate for District 5— while opposing two of the people running against them.

Though Long was reelected, the outside money couldn’t get Herrera past the primaries.

The expenditure limits must be voluntary because of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling, said Tim Allison, a public policy professor at CSUCI.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, the court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prevents the government from limiting corporations’ independent expenditures for political campaigns.

“Because there is no coordination, candidates are not in control of (independent expenditure committees),” said Mic Farris, a former Thousand Oaks planning commissioner who has experience in local supervisorial campaigns. “You can’t really stop other people from exercising their free speech to support or oppose a candidate for office.”

The perception of candidates and elections is critical, Lunn said. If the public perceives that the process is unfair, it hurts democracy.

“Once the public loses faith in the process, that’s a bad place,” he said.

Allison echoed Lunn’s sentiment.

“There is danger if somebody doesn’t accept the voluntary expenditure limit in that the public can look at those individuals and think that they might be trying to buy the election,” he said.

Choosing not to accept the expenditure limits makes it harder to raise money from contributors and can cause voters to question a candidate’s integrity.

“As a matter of public policy, the hope is that every candidate will accept the limit,” Allison said. “If every candidate accepts the limit, they’re all on a level playing field.”

Kunicki, owner of Dean Kunicki Business & Development Consulting, told The Acorn he felt confident that the limits were fair and sufficient for public outreach based on past races.

“The ability to fundraise, although important, should not be a reason voters decide on who to represent them,” he said.

Parvin, who is the mayor of Moorpark, said she accepted the limits to avoid outside influence.

“I chose to accept the expenditure limits because people who make large political donations should not have more political influence than others,” she said.

Perez told The Acorn that keeping voters’trust was also a factor in his decision to agree to the limits.

“I share and respect the prevailing community skepticism about candidates who raise and then spend inordinate amounts of money to get elected to office,” said Perez, a trustee with the Ventura County Community College District.