Editorial: Oakland public campaign finance Measure W worth trying

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

Campaign spending in Oakland’s mayoral race highlights just how broken the city’s political system is.

More than $1.2 million, half of all spending for the four leading candidates, comes from independent expenditure committees controlled by three special interest groups. And it’s going to just two of the four candidates, as reporters Shomik Mukherjee and Harriet Blair Rowan highlighted Sunday.

More than $700,000 of $1.1 million spent in support of Sheng Thao has come from committees tied to labor unions. More than $527,000 of $708,000 spent backing Ignacio De La Fuente has come from an investment group seeking to export coal through Oakland and from Realtors.

There’s no way to stop it. The U.S. Supreme Court has protected independent spending from limitations.

But maybe that influence could be diluted. Maybe, rather than trying to tamp down the power of special interests, voters could bolster political strength of everyday people. That’s where Measure W on the Nov. 8 ballot comes in.

Dubbed the “Fair Elections Act,” it would provide public campaign financing for city and school board races. Every potential voter in the city could receive $100 worth of vouchers to use for political donations.

Seattle has tried this for three election cycles now. The results: More people make campaign contributions, and those who do are much more likely to vote. It’s not perfect, but it’s worth trying in Oakland to see if it can fix the city’s dysfunctional politics. Voters should approve Measure W.

To capture the vouchers, called “Democracy Dollars,” candidates would have to engage with regular folks. If they did, they would have a campaign-revenue source that would not require coddling up to heavy-hitter donors.

To be eligible to redeem vouchers, candidates would have to first demonstrate that they are serious contenders by collecting elsewhere a minimum number of $10-plus contributions. A mayoral candidate, for example, would need 400 contributions.

The city would allocate at least $4 million each election cycle for the program unless the city hits a budget crisis. Limits on how much each candidate could redeem would be based on the office sought. Vouchers could be redeemed until city funding runs out.

Candidates who accept vouchers could also raise money elsewhere. But they would have to abide by spending limits unless their opponents, or independent expenditure committees on their opponents’ behalf, exceeded the limits.

A drawback of Measure W is cost. In addition to the $4 million every two years for voucher redemptions, program staffing and administration would be about $1.6 million annually.

Measure W would replace Oakland’s minimal and ineffectual campaign finance program launched in 1999 that is currently budgeted at only $155,000 per election cycle.

Clearly, the current system is not working. It’s time to try something new.