As Albuquerque’s mayoral race heats up, a long-standing campaign finance system designed to reduce the influence of big donors is once again drawing criticism. Known as public financing, the system gives taxpayer dollars to candidates who collect thousands of $5 contributions. But critics say a loophole allows outside money to still play a significant role—and it’s raising questions ahead of this year’s election.Public dollars, private influenceFive candidates are currently seeking public financing for their campaigns. If they meet the required threshold of 3,779 five-dollar contributions, each will receive about $700,000 in taxpayer money to fund their mayoral bids.Among them is candidate Alex Uballez, who sees public financing as essential to a more representative democracy.“If you only come into office on the backs of people who can fund you, then it means that you’re naturally gonna be inclined to listen to those voices more,” Uballez said. “Public financing is key so that the people’s voice is first in the office.”But while candidates may decline traditional fundraising to qualify for public financing, that doesn’t mean private money is absent from the campaign trail.Measure finance committees step inUnder city ordinance, outside groups known as Measure Finance Committees (MFCs) can accept unlimited private donations to support candidates—so long as they don’t coordinate directly with those campaigns. These committees can run TV ads, rent billboards, and flood mailboxes with campaign materials, all while a candidate claims to be publicly funded.“It is legal as long as those separations are made,” said Paul Gessing of the Rio Grande Foundation, a government watchdog group. “But it is a way to double your money as a candidate.”Gessing, a long-time critic of public financing, argued that money always finds a way into politics.“Money in politics is like Jurassic Park,” he said. “The dinosaurs will find a way. And money will always find a way because there’s so much power at stake.”History of controversyThe tension between public financing and private support came to a head in 2017, when Mayor Tim Keller became the first mayoral candidate to win using public funds. After the election, a complaint was filed with the city’s ethics board alleging that a Measure Finance Committee—run by Keller’s former campaign manager—had illegally coordinated with Keller’s publicly funded campaign.The board ultimately found no evidence of collusion but did determine Keller had violated a separate law.“Is this shady? Yes,” Gessing said. “Shady is a good word to describe it. Not inherently illegal, but it circumvents the true intention of the law.”KOAT political analyst Brian Sanderoff offered a different take.“I wouldn’t call it a shady process,” he said. “But it does defeat, in a way, part of the purpose of public financing, which is to minimize the influence of money in politics.”Candidates drop out of public financing effortDespite the promise of taxpayer funding, not all candidates have found success with public financing. This year, three mayoral hopefuls—Alpana Adair, Patrick Sais, and Eddie Varela—have dropped out of the public financing program after failing to gather enough small-dollar contributions.“It’s hard for a candidate to qualify for public financing,” Sanderoff noted.Meanwhile, a Measure Finance Committee has already formed in support of Mayor Keller, who is once again pursuing public funding.Target 7 reached out to Mayor Tim Keller and Darren White, the current top two candidates in the $5 contribution race, to ask how they plan to avoid collusion between their campaigns and outside committees. While Keller’s campaign has not yet responded to Target 7’s questions, White responded Monday via email.White said there has not been a MFC formed to support his candidacy, and says that while public financing “isn’t favored,” it’s “designed in a way that candidates are compelled to participate.”What comes nextAs the mayoral race moves forward, the debate over public financing is unlikely to go away. Critics argue that the influence of money—public or private—remains strong, while supporters believe reforms can make the system more effective and transparent.
As Albuquerque’s mayoral race heats up, a long-standing campaign finance system designed to reduce the influence of big donors is once again drawing criticism. Known as public financing, the system gives taxpayer dollars to candidates who collect thousands of $5 contributions. But critics say a loophole allows outside money to still play a significant role—and it’s raising questions ahead of this year’s election.
Public dollars, private influence
Advertisement
Five candidates are currently seeking public financing for their campaigns. If they meet the required threshold of 3,779 five-dollar contributions, each will receive about $700,000 in taxpayer money to fund their mayoral bids.
Among them is candidate Alex Uballez, who sees public financing as essential to a more representative democracy.
“If you only come into office on the backs of people who can fund you, then it means that you’re naturally gonna be inclined to listen to those voices more,” Uballez said. “Public financing is key so that the people’s voice is first in the office.”
But while candidates may decline traditional fundraising to qualify for public financing, that doesn’t mean private money is absent from the campaign trail.
Measure finance committees step in
Under city ordinance, outside groups known as Measure Finance Committees (MFCs) can accept unlimited private donations to support candidates—so long as they don’t coordinate directly with those campaigns. These committees can run TV ads, rent billboards, and flood mailboxes with campaign materials, all while a candidate claims to be publicly funded.
“It is legal as long as those separations are made,” said Paul Gessing of the Rio Grande Foundation, a government watchdog group. “But it is a way to double your money as a candidate.”
Gessing, a long-time critic of public financing, argued that money always finds a way into politics.
“Money in politics is like Jurassic Park,” he said. “The dinosaurs will find a way. And money will always find a way because there’s so much power at stake.”
History of controversy
The tension between public financing and private support came to a head in 2017, when Mayor Tim Keller became the first mayoral candidate to win using public funds. After the election, a complaint was filed with the city’s ethics board alleging that a Measure Finance Committee—run by Keller’s former campaign manager—had illegally coordinated with Keller’s publicly funded campaign.
The board ultimately found no evidence of collusion but did determine Keller had violated a separate law.
“Is this shady? Yes,” Gessing said. “Shady is a good word to describe it. Not inherently illegal, but it circumvents the true intention of the law.”
KOAT political analyst Brian Sanderoff offered a different take.
“I wouldn’t call it a shady process,” he said. “But it does defeat, in a way, part of the purpose of public financing, which is to minimize the influence of money in politics.”
Candidates drop out of public financing effort
Despite the promise of taxpayer funding, not all candidates have found success with public financing. This year, three mayoral hopefuls—Alpana Adair, Patrick Sais, and Eddie Varela—have dropped out of the public financing program after failing to gather enough small-dollar contributions.
“It’s hard for a candidate to qualify for public financing,” Sanderoff noted.
Meanwhile, a Measure Finance Committee has already formed in support of Mayor Keller, who is once again pursuing public funding.
Target 7 reached out to Mayor Tim Keller and Darren White, the current top two candidates in the $5 contribution race, to ask how they plan to avoid collusion between their campaigns and outside committees.
While Keller’s campaign has not yet responded to Target 7’s questions, White responded Monday via email.
White said there has not been a MFC formed to support his candidacy, and says that while public financing “isn’t favored,” it’s “designed in a way that candidates are compelled to participate.”
What comes next
As the mayoral race moves forward, the debate over public financing is unlikely to go away. Critics argue that the influence of money—public or private—remains strong, while supporters believe reforms can make the system more effective and transparent.
发表回复