Another candidate in Albuquerque’s crowded mayoral race has ended their bid for public financing. Darren White announced Tuesday he would no longer pursue the $756,000 in taxpayer-funded campaign money and criticized the public financing system in the process.“Despite our tireless grassroots efforts, it became clear that we would not be able to meet the remaining 1,800 qualifying $5 donations within the two-week deadline,” White said in a statement to KOAT.White now joins nine other candidates opting to privately fund their campaigns. His departure leaves Mayor Tim Keller and a handful of other candidates still vying to qualify for the public funds under the city’s 2009 campaign finance law.Public financing under scrutinyTo receive public campaign funds in Albuquerque, mayoral candidates must collect 3,780 individual donations of $5 by a set deadline. If successful, they are granted $756,000 to run their campaign.While some candidates see public financing as a way to ensure fair access to political office, others see it as a system that benefits incumbents.Alex Uballez, another candidate who recently suspended his public financing effort, praised the system’s intent.“Public financing is key so that the people’s voice is first in the office,” Uballez said.White disagreed, calling the process an “incumbent protection plan.” Mayor Tim Keller, who has used public financing to win two previous elections, remains in the race and is still working to meet the donation threshold.Is it an unfair advantage?KOAT political analyst Brian Sanderoff said that while the public financing system can benefit incumbents, it doesn’t necessarily create an unfair playing field.“An incumbent has more name recognition,” Sanderoff explained. “An incumbent might have more supporters because he’s been mayor for four or eight years. And so the power of incumbency is significant in many ways — not just campaign finance.”As of Friday, Keller still needed 740 additional qualifying donations to receive public funding.Measure finance committees fill the gapCandidates who do and do not qualify for public financing can both still benefit from Measure Finance Committees (MFCs), similar to political action committees. These groups can raise unlimited funds to support a candidate, so long as they don’t coordinate directly with the campaign.But can a combination of private fundraising and MFC support match the power of public financing?Sanderoff said it’s possible — but unlikely.“The sum of the two — individual private contributions and Measure Finance Committee monies — might get there,” he said. “But yeah, it’s hard to raise three-quarters of a million dollars in a race like this.”A crowded field could lead to runoffDespite Keller’s advantages, Sanderoff predicts a competitive race due to the sheer number of candidates.“With so many candidates, it’s entirely possible that no one receives more than 50 percent of the vote,” he said. “In that case, we could be headed for a runoff election.”
Another candidate in Albuquerque’s crowded mayoral race has ended their bid for public financing. Darren White announced Tuesday he would no longer pursue the $756,000 in taxpayer-funded campaign money and criticized the public financing system in the process.
“Despite our tireless grassroots efforts, it became clear that we would not be able to meet the remaining 1,800 qualifying $5 donations within the two-week deadline,” White said in a statement to KOAT.
Advertisement
White now joins nine other candidates opting to privately fund their campaigns. His departure leaves Mayor Tim Keller and a handful of other candidates still vying to qualify for the public funds under the city’s 2009 campaign finance law.
Public financing under scrutiny
To receive public campaign funds in Albuquerque, mayoral candidates must collect 3,780 individual donations of $5 by a set deadline. If successful, they are granted $756,000 to run their campaign.
While some candidates see public financing as a way to ensure fair access to political office, others see it as a system that benefits incumbents.
Alex Uballez, another candidate who recently suspended his public financing effort, praised the system’s intent.
“Public financing is key so that the people’s voice is first in the office,” Uballez said.
White disagreed, calling the process an “incumbent protection plan.” Mayor Tim Keller, who has used public financing to win two previous elections, remains in the race and is still working to meet the donation threshold.
Is it an unfair advantage?
KOAT political analyst Brian Sanderoff said that while the public financing system can benefit incumbents, it doesn’t necessarily create an unfair playing field.
“An incumbent has more name recognition,” Sanderoff explained. “An incumbent might have more supporters because he’s been mayor for four or eight years. And so the power of incumbency is significant in many ways — not just campaign finance.”
As of Friday, Keller still needed 740 additional qualifying donations to receive public funding.
Measure finance committees fill the gap
Candidates who do and do not qualify for public financing can both still benefit from Measure Finance Committees (MFCs), similar to political action committees. These groups can raise unlimited funds to support a candidate, so long as they don’t coordinate directly with the campaign.
But can a combination of private fundraising and MFC support match the power of public financing?
Sanderoff said it’s possible — but unlikely.
“The sum of the two — individual private contributions and Measure Finance Committee monies — might get there,” he said. “But yeah, it’s hard to raise three-quarters of a million dollars in a race like this.”
A crowded field could lead to runoff
Despite Keller’s advantages, Sanderoff predicts a competitive race due to the sheer number of candidates.
“With so many candidates, it’s entirely possible that no one receives more than 50 percent of the vote,” he said. “In that case, we could be headed for a runoff election.”
发表回复