Home › News › Local Politics
Public-funding plan passed test in Albuquerque elections, advocates say
More Local Politics
- Red lights, cameras, action: Albuquerque program back on, but so is feud
- New Mexico hopefuls for U.S. Senate tout experience at debate
- Reports: Personal funds help some New Mexico congressional candidates
MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES
-
ABQTrib.com to remain available
08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008 -
Congressman is indicted
08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008 -
Series of attacks target Green Zone
08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008 -
Iran is defying U.N., agency says
08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008 -
Waterboarding approval probed
08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008
TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*
- Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
- Is Rome Burning?
- Ominous Skies
- The Road to Invalidation
- Albuquerque company participates in “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”
*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.
STORY TOOLS
SHARE THIS STORY [?]
What they spent
Tuesday marked the first city election in which candidates could opt into a public-financing program. Here's how much candidates raised and spent for the Oct. 2 election.
Candidate Contributions Spent
District 2
Debbie O'Malley* $29,820 $31,528
Katherine Martinez $35,748 $33,157
District 4
Brad Winter $26,268 $21,544
Paulette De'Pascal* $31,798 $34,282
District 6
Rey Garduño* $25,902 $25,310
Kevin Wilson* $26,720 $25,760
Joanie Griffin* $24,140 $22,538
Blair Kaufman $3,105 $3,620
District 8
Trudy Jones $37,569 $28,766
District 9
Committee to Keep Don Harris $49,335 $50,986
New Mexicans for Democracy $14,385 $13,980
*Received public funds
With the city's first election using a public-financing program behind them, advocates are declaring it a success while suggesting tweaks.
"It was a great success right out of the gates," said Matt Brix, a board member of Common Cause of New Mexico, which led the charge to enact the program two years ago.
The Open and Ethical Elections Code was approved by voters in October 2005, winning by 69 percent of the vote.
Under the new system, candidates had to gather $5 contributions from 1 percent of the registered voters in their respective districts.
Those contributions then went into a city fund. The candidates who gathered enough contributions then received money from the city fund equal to $1 for every registered voter in their district, or about $30,000. They had May 1-31 to gather the donations.
Of the nine candidates seeking seats in four districts, five met the criteria for public financing.
Principally, the program was a way to make running for public office more plausible to people intimidated by the levels of money involved in campaigning.
It also was meant to reduce the influence of outside special interests and increase the amount of time a candidate could spend with the public, rather than on raising money.
"Anecdotally, we heard from candidates that they got to spend way more time going door to door," Brix said. "From what we heard, and from the system's perspective, it was a great success."
Brix, along with at least two of the publicly financed candidates, are suggesting tweaks to improve the system for next time around.
Paulette De'Pascal, who lost Tuesday to incumbent Councilor Brad Winter in District 4, said some voters became confused when she approached them for signatures at two different times - once when they gave $5 qualifying contributions for public-financing, and later when she gathered signatures on a petition to put her on the ballot.
"People would say, `I already signed that a month ago,' " said De'Pascal, who then had to spend time explaining the system.
Rey Garduño, a publicly financed candidate who defeated a field of four to win the District 6 seat to be vacated by Councilor Martin Heinrich, said he would hope to see the campaign finance reporting periods changed.
As it is now, candidates must file reports twice just days before the election. Those reports show whether a privately financed candidate outspent a publicly financed candidate. In those cases, the publicly financed candidate receives a check from the city fund that matches the spending difference.
Garduño is advocating an earlier reporting period, because any extra money distributed to a publicly financed candidate after the last reporting period would be given too late to make a difference.
That happened in one case this year, when incumbent City Councilor Debbie O'Malley - who was victorious in her District 2 re-election bid - received about $1,600 on Election Day.
"You can't do anything with it. You can't, like, put a piece of mail out," O'Malley said. "We ran out of food (on Election Day), and we got some more for our celebration party. I ended up giving some of my people some extra money for helping out."
While the measure passed two years ago with almost no organized opposition, the few critics of the program believe the election showcased its flaws.
Mario Burgos, who commented on the election on his blog at Marioburgos.com and criticized the public-financing program as a guest on local radio shows, said the program didn't attract more new candidates than there were in previous elections.
And he doubts it will in the future, because the low pay for being a city councilor all but excludes anybody but those who can afford it, he said.
"The bottom line is you still have to take a job that's going to pay you $10,000 a year, and there are only a certain number of people who can do that," Burgos said.
The program also had some unintended consequences - in two races, it was used to criticize publicly financed candidates.
De'Pascal was criticized in a mailing sent by Winter's campaign because she used the public money to pay for items at Starbuck's and Dion's Pizza.
O'Malley was criticized in a mailing by her opponent, Katherine Martinez, for using the public money on negative campaign tactics.
O'Malley called it "absurd" and "blatantly unfair" to assume that publicly financed candidates should be asked to use their money differently from those who raise money privately.
Martinez, a supporter of public financing who failed to meet the qualifications for this election, said, "It is taxpayer's money. I heard from a lot of people they don't like negative campaigning."
Regardless of the critiques, Garduño appreciated that he was able to spend more time with his new constituents, time he would have used raising money otherwise.
He knocked on 2,832 doors during his campaign.
"I was able to get engaged in issues we sometimes disagreed on, issues they wanted to hear about," Garduño said. "There was no issue of money. It was an issue of issues."

