Campaign Finance:
Contribution Limits, Voluntary
Expenditure Limits & Public
Financing Models
Martin McTaggart, City Clerk
Overview
• Background and Direction Received
• Draft Ordinance Summary
• Contribution Limit Amendment
• Voluntary Expenditure Limits
• Public Financing Models
• Council Feedback & Direction
2 of 11
1. Does the Council wish to proceed with introducing the draft ordinance as presented?
2. Does the Council have any additional feedback or direction on the Public Financing research presented?
3 of 11
Council Questions:
Background on Campaign Finance Ordinance
2005: Chapter 2.80 adopted, setting contribution and loan limits $250 from individuals; $500 from organizations
$15,000 self-loan cap for candidates
2012: Violations deemed a public offense (Sec. 2.80.070) 2017: Contribution limits increased
$500 individuals; $1,000 organizations
2021: Definition of “contribution” expanded to include in-kind support 2024: Voluntary expenditure limit introduced
2025: Council directed updates to align contribution limits at $1,000 for individuals and organizations and adjust for inflation
4 of 11
Voluntary Expenditure Limits (VEL)
5 of 11
• Self-imposed spending limits candidates choose to adhere to during electoral process
• Aim: Equitable and transparent political landscape
• Mandatory expenditure limits are constitutionally
impermissible, hence the interest from jurisdictions in voluntary limits
• 2024: First election administered under VEL
• 2025: Council discussed enhancing VEL incentives
• Proposed Change: Add 400-word candidate statement on City website.
• Modeled after Redwood City and aligned with Election Code Section 13307 (a)(1)
Proposed Ordinance Summary
Proposed Campaign Finance Ordinance – Key Updates
1. Increases contribution limits to $1,000 for both individuals and organizations
2. Future adjustments tied to CPI, rounded to the nearest $10
3. Adds optional 400-word candidate statement for VEL participants Next Steps:
Scheduled for Council consideration on August 18, 2025 (Consent Calendar) • Ordinance effective January 1, 2026
6 of 11
Public Financing of Election Campaigns
7 of 11
Background:
• September 2023: Council expressed interest in exploring public financing: review paused due to staff capacity
• February 2025: Council directed staff to revisit public financing discussion Legal Context:
• Prohibited for general law cities, counties, and special districts • Permitted for Charter Cities, like San Mateo under home rule authority Examples:
• San Francisco, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Long Beach
Common Objectives:
• Expenditure limits, reduced reliance on private donations, increased electoral participation Summary of Public Financing Models
8 of 11
Grant-Based Model:
• Lump-sum grant to eligible candidates
• Example: Santa Fe – $60K (Mayor), $15K (Council)
• Estimated Operational Costs for San Mateo: $100K–$200K per cycle Reimbursement Model:
• Reimbursement for qualified campaign expenses
• Example: Oakland (pre-2024) – 63% participation; $159k disbursed Voucher Program:
• Public funded vouchers distributed to voters
• Example: Seattle – 4 x $25 vouchers, $3M annual cost
• Estimated Operational Costs for San Mateo: $500k per cycle (administrative costs not included) Summary of Public Financing of Election Campaigns
9 of 11
• Analysis:
• Public Financing aims to reduce private influence and broaden public participation • Parameters have been modified consistently towards this goal • Implementation requires significant funding and administrative capacity • Oakland’s experience:
• Voter approved voucher program delayed due to budget constraints • Interim Limited Public Financing (LPF) offers $8K-$25K per candidate • Administered by a dedicated publicly funded Ethics Commission • San Mateo context:
• City Clerk’s Office would absorb key responsibilities (eligibility verification, compliance, disbursement of funds) • Participation rate varies across jurisdictions and model used • Additional resources and planning would be required for success • 2024 Election: City covered candidate statement fees in County Sample Ballot and Voter Information Guide
1. Does the Council wish to proceed with introducing the draft ordinance as presented?
2. Does the Council have any additional feedback or direction on the Public Financing research presented?
OPTION 1: staff to actively pursue the development and implementation of public financing program for future City elections, including evaluating feasibility, administrative requirements, and potential funding mechanisms OPTION 2: staff continue monitoring developments in Oakland and other jurisdictions to gather best practices and lessons learned, with the possibility of revisiting the topic at a later date? OPTION 3: No further action taken at this time.
10 of 11
Council Questions:
Thank You
Martin McTaggart, City Clerk
[email protected]
Prasanna Rasiah, City Attorney
[email protected]
11 of 11