Campaign material of Richard "R.J." Berry sent to voters during the 2009 mayoral race, highlighting two of his primary messages against a trolley car system and what he framed as "sanctuary city" policies.

Campaign material of Richard "R.J." Berry sent to voters during the 2009 mayoral race, highlighting two of his primary messages against a trolley car system and what he framed as "sanctuary city" policies.

A number of factors contributed to Richard “R.J.” Berry’s victory in Albuquerque’s October mayoral election, including an energized Republican base, low turnout among Democrats, and perhaps a national anti-incumbent sentiment that included Mayor Martin Chavez.

But one interesting factor that makes Albuquerque perhaps unique in this fall’s elections is the city’s new public financing system. While there are some kinks that still need to be worked out, advocates say, the mayor’s race showed the system does what it is intended to do–reduce the influence of special interest money on elections.

The difference in the amount of money involved in the campaigns is clear. In 2005, Martin Chavez raised about $1.2 million for his re-election, but in 2009 he opted to use the city’s public financing system. Along with his two opponents, Chavez received $328,000 in public funds to run his campaign in return for not raising private cash donations. Had Chavez decided to use privately-raised money, and gone above the $328,000 given to other candidates, the city would have distributed matching funds to his opponents.

In the end, campaign finance reports show that all three of the mayoral candidates (and their respective measure finance committees) spent under what they were allowed before matching funds would have been distributed to their opponents. With less money in the race, and similar amounts spent by all, no candidate was able to swamp his opponents with radio, television or mail advertisements.

“The system worked as intended,” says Steve Allen, executive director of Common Cause, a government watchdog group. “It cut corrupting special interest money out of the mayoral campaign so that the eventual winner would not have to feel beholden to large private donors rather than the citizens of Albuquerque.”

Common Cause worked with the City Council to develop the public financing system.

The city’s mayoral trial run with public financing did identify several areas for improvement.

The system can be improved

Early in 2009, two high-profile city councilors found themselves unable to gather enough $5 contributions from Albuquerque voters to qualify for public financing in the mayoral race. At the time, Councilors Michael Cadigan and Debbie O’Malley said it was just too hard to gather enough signatures. Neither of them had the institutional support or the city-wide reach of the three candidates who ended up qualifying: State Rep. Richard Berry, Mayor Martin Chavez, and former State Senate President Richard Romero.

“It’s worth looking at whether we should make it easier to gather enough [qualifying contributions], given that two high profile candidates couldn’t qualify,” Allen says, while cautioning that the bar should still be set high enough to ensure public funds are only given out to serious candidates.

City Clerk Randy Autio said he’s concerned about how to ensure that campaign finance reports come in quickly enough to allow the city to disburse matching funds to other candidates–when the money could still make a difference.

Republican party mail that mimics the campaign messages of Richard Berry--no quarter cent tax, trolley car, or sanctuary city policies.

Republican party mail that mimics the campaign messages of Richard Berry--no quarter cent tax, trolley car, or sanctuary city policies.

Measure finance committees (MFCs), Albuquerque’s version of political action committees (PACs), are required to report activities in support or opposition to, or coordination with, candidates for office.

The Independent reviewed the files of the candidates and measure finance committees active during the mayoral campaign. Contrary to predictions earlier in the election cycle, there were not droves of MFC’s working for or against a candidate. Berry and Romero had a handful, and Chavez appeared to have none.

But it can be hard to determine exactly which groups are spending money and how. That’s one area in which Autio would like to see improvement.

A number of the MFC files examined by the Independent didn’t include any documentation of the group’s activities. Contributions and expenditures are reported online, but in addition, physical copies of the materials are supposed to be filed with the city clerk. Without that documentation, there’s no way of verifying if the group’s activities are in support of or opposition to a candidate.

City law says the materials have to be given to the City Clerk “promptly,” which has generally been interpreted to indicate a five-day period, according to Autio. The word “promptly” could be officially defined as within 24 hours, which would be an improvement, he says.

“Unless someone reports to us, we don’t know what they’re doing,” Autio explains. “It was created as a complaint-driven system, and we don’t have internal resources to dig into the reporting and actively seek out information to see if there are activities we don’t know about. One improvement would be funding for active compliance investigators in the City Clerk’s office.”

The online reporting system could also require measure finance committees to indicate whether or not they’re working for, against or with a candidate, he says.

“No system is perfect”

The process of determining which activities a group or a measure finance committee can undertake without triggering matching funds will most likely be an active one in years to come.

In 2009, candidates questioned whether the National Rifle Association should have been required to register as an MFC, given that it endorsed Chavez and sent mailers to its members urging them to vote for him. But case law says such member-to-member activities can’t be regulated.

Perhaps a little more tricky is the issue of whether a measure finance committee can clearly mimic the campaign platforms of a particular candidate, while not officially coordinating with the candidate—and potentially triggering matching funds.

For example, the Republican party formed an MFC with the stated purpose of defeating the quarter-cent transportation tax, but in the week before the election, it sent out mailers that included Berry’s primary campaign messages. The mailer was followed by an automated call from former U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson urging people to look for the mailer and be sure to vote.

In order for the mailer to have triggered matching funds, the city clerk says, one of the other campaigns would have had to complain to his office that it was coordinated activity. Then, a hearing would have been held to determine if matching funds were warranted. Because no such complaint was filed, it’s a moot point under the current system.

But the mailer may not have been an issue anyway, Allen says, because the public financing system can only go so far before it infringes on First Amendment protected speech.

“No system is perfect. The public financing system is a vast improvement over what we had before,” he says. “Politics is always going to be a blood and guts fight—and that won’t go away because of public financing. What’s important is that we no longer have a privately funded system where special interests rule.”