San Diego City Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, District 9, wants to bring campaign finance in the city “into the light.”
He said so at a press conference outside of City Hall on Wednesday, when he announced his package of rules aimed at creating stronger disclosure requirements and limitations on campaign fundraising.
“The idea is simple, San Diego should work for San Diegans, not for whoever has the most money to spend influencing City Hall and our elections,” Elo-Rivera said.
The first of two proposals is an ordinance that would limit campaign fundraising to one year before the primary election, meaning a candidate or their committee could not solicit or accept donations before this window.
The second proposal would update the city’s municipal code to make several changes, including requiring the disclosure of money raised or spent on a candidate's behalf before they were a declared candidate.
Elo-Rivera said special interests can spend unlimited amounts of money bolstering a soon-to-be candidate’s profile before they declare candidacy. His proposal would require candidates to disclose this information even if the spending or donations occurred before they declared for a specific office.
“City Hall should not exist to maintain one endless fundraising cycle,” Elo-Rivera said. “Our proposal sets one clear starting line. One year before the election. Less time raising money, more time doing the people's work.”
But Professor Brian Adams from San Diego State University said a limitation on when candidates can fundraise, and therefore campaign, could benefit incumbents who have name recognition and can raise money very quickly.
“If I am incumbent, I'm going to love that rule, because it means that no one can run against me before a year out, and that I don't need to campaign years in advance because I'm in and I already have money, probably, in the bank for my last election,” Adams said.
He said that particular proposal might face legal challenges over its constitutionality. The Supreme Court has ruled that spending money on political campaigns is equivalent to free speech. Adams said a time limitation on accepting donations could be struck down as limiting this form of speech.
Elo-Rivera’s proposal would also require ads, mailers and other electioneering communications to disclose the top sources of funding for the group or committee disseminating that information.
Arizona voters approved a similar proposition in 2022 that requires independent spenders disclose the original source of money behind their spending. And federal legislation aimed at this issue was introduced by California Congressman Kevin Mullin in September of this year.
According to Elo-Rivera, the idea is to make clear who is supporting or opposing a candidate or measure, rather than simply saying which committee paid for an ad.
“We've all seen mailers from groups with names that sound like they come out of a focus group,” Elo-Rivera said. “Citizens for something. Neighbors for something. Californians for something. The names sound innocent, but the money behind them come from some of the most wealthy people and powerful corporations in the world.”
Adams said that this rule is well-intentioned, but could be difficult to practically enforce.
“In some ways it makes more sense not to put it on the ad itself, but to have a repository of all the ads that are run and then where you can go and you can say, well, who's paying, who's funding this and actually see who the funders actually are,” Adams said.
Finally, the proposal would require advertisements and other campaign materials that were made with Artificial Intelligence to disclose that as well.
Elo-Rivera said the threat of AI creating fake videos or images of real people can do damage “before the truth ever has a chance to catch up.”
When asked about how these rules would be enforced, Elo-Rivera said the city’s Ethics Commission would be in charge of recognizing violations and issuing potential fines. And, he said he thinks the public revelation that campaigns or candidates violated those rules would have their own impact.
“I think that the rules being there will mean that most people do that, and then there will be some people who try to skirt the rules, and there are penalties there,” Elo-Rivera said. “And, you know, those penalties can be fines. And there's also the reputational damage that comes when you violate ethics rules.”
Overall, Elo-Rivera said the influence of money in politics is something people are aware of, don’t like, and want political leaders to reject.
“We know that people across the political spectrum are disgusted by the amount of money in politics,” Elo-Rivera said. “They're disgusted by the influence that big corporations have and wealthy individuals have on our elections. And so someone who violated these rules, who got bankrolled by a big corporation or a wealthy individual and didn't disclose that, I don't think that would be good for their candidacy in the long term, now that we have this rule on the books.”
According to Adams, these proposals are aimed at a common goal of revealing to the public who is spending money in politics, because governments can’t limit that spending itself.
“So if you can't put a limit, what do you do?” Adams said. “Well, you try to at least have transparency. You say, well, we can't limit the amount of money in politics, but at least everybody can know who's spending what. And I think that makes a lot of sense.”
Ultimately both of Elo-Rivera’s proposals passed the rules committee, and will go before the full council.
