Should candidates spend as much money as possible to win votes? Does public money make for a cleaner election?

Those are questions city voters will answer this spring when they weigh a ballot measure that would make taxpayer money available to candidates who agree to election spending limits. The public financing of campaigns is among seven changes to the city charter that are up for a vote in the March 4 election.

The chairman of a committee appointed to review the charter called public campaign financing the most important proposal on the ballot, claiming the voluntary program would reduce or eliminate the corruptive influence that campaign donations have on policymaking, would relieve candidates of the time and energy required for fundraising, and would permit reasonable limits on spending.

The city's most recent mayoral elections offer evidence of rising spending among candidates. Charter Commission Chairman Jim Harrington said although city records on campaign finance only go back two elections, he's observed such people as real-estate and development attorneys make large donations to candidates, often with the expectation of currying favor later.

"It's very important to get the influence of money out of our local politics," Harrington said. "Nobody says there is a quid pro quo or that they send contributions with a letter that says you need to vote this way on a development permit, but these are profit-making entities. They wouldn't be spending that money if it didn't make a return."

According to newspaper records, in 2002, winning Mayor Larry Delgado raised more than $96,000, and only four years later, three candidates in 2006 collected and spent a total of more than $355,000, with winner David Coss leading the pack at $146,169.

Several kinds of public financing systems are used in the United States, but the charter commission declined to recommend a particular system. Instead, if voters opt for the program, the amendment says the city should then have a public process to determine whether full or partial funding will be used.

Harrington said the most successful systems implemented in the past 10 years work as follows: The city determines reasonable spending for each office, then sets up a financing mechanism with enough money to cover the average number of candidates with that amount. Candidates have a choice of whether to accept the money, which requires their agreement not to collect outside donations. If other candidates in the same race opt not to accept public funding, then collect more money than the spending limit, the city matches that extra spending for public candidates.

The committee estimated Santa Fe's first publicly financed election could cost $100,000 to $200,000, money needed once every two years that Harrington said could be whittled out of the general fund or collected through a small property-tax increase.

The public finance of elections is likely to divide voters. Political activist Donado
"Cove" Coviello said he plans to register with the city as a lobbyist so he can spend money to campaign against all the proposed charter amendments.

Spending public money on incumbent politicians is one of the most irksome proposals, Coviello said. "This idea of paying for an incumbent to run again without term limits is just outrageous," he said. "They have such an advantage anyway. ... I don't think that money has ever influenced an election in Santa Fe."

City Councilor Ron Trujillo, who beat an incumbent by only a few votes in 2006, has also gone on record against public financing, noting he'd rather have money go to benefits, such as parks. Trujillo spent about $6,000 running against Carol Robertson Lopez, who spent about four times more.

The city of Albuquerque and the state Public Regulation Commission have employed public financing in recent years. In Arizona, Gov. Janet Napolitano was elected twice on public contributions.

Candidates in most public-financing jurisdictions don't get the money on a whim. As a show that they have viable support, nominal donations from a large number of constituents act as a vetting system. For the state's Public Regulation Commission, for example, candidates had to collect $5 "qualifying contributions" from each of one-quarter of 1 percent of the total voters for that race in the last election.

Contact Julie Ann Grimm at 986-3017 or jgrimm@sfnewmexican.com.

This is the first of a series about proposed amendments to the city charter that voters will face in the March 4 municipal election.

Tuesday: Rank-choice voting

Today (Wednesday): Public financing of campaigns

Thursday: Fewer signatures for direct democracy

Friday: Municipal judges required to have law license

Saturday: Mayor to vote in more instances