a report from Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair of the Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee, for a public hearing held on November 14, 2018 to discuss the Policy Order adopted regarding Cambridge publicly financed Municipal Election Program and the Cambridge Municipal People’s Pledge Program

ATTACHMENTA City of Cambridge 0-3 IN CITY COUNCIL October 1, 2018 COUNCILLOR TOOMEY WHEREAS: In recent years the Cambridge City Council has expressed its interest in implementing Sunilan scholai fray prein the playing ear i am porn for ily fundraising and expenses; WHEREAS: On April 30, 2018, an Order was submitted to the City Council proposing the "Cambridge Publicly Financed Municipal Election Program" and the "Cambridge Municipal People's Pledge Program" and the Council unanimously agreed to reter the proposed programs to the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee for a WHEREAS: During Council discussion of these programs it was noted that any approval of a publicly funded campaign finance program occur in a non-municipal election year to allow for any such program to be effectively implemented in a municipal election year; WHEREAS: To date, the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee has not scheduled a hearing on the proposed programs and the non-municipal election year is coming to an end; now therefore be it ORDERED: That the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee schedule a hearing on these programs as soon as possible and report back to the City Council with a plan for implementation no later than the City Council meeting scheduled for November 19, • 2018; and be it further ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to televise this hearing. In City Council October 1, 2018. Adopted by the affirmative vote of nine members. Attest:- Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk A true copy; ATTEST:- Danna P. Rape Donna P. Lopez, City Cierk

ATTACHMENTB Nov. 14, 2018, 3-5pm Vice Mayor Devereux, Chair Elections in Cambridge Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee Hearing Publicly Financed Municipal

the past by City Council? What has been proposed in

& Carlone (adopted 6/2/14) • Asked Law Dept to explore feasibility of public financing. • Referred to Government Operations Committee, Tim Toomey, Chair. • Possible Benefits: lower barrier to entry for diverse candidates, reduce Policy Order in May 2014 by Councillors Mazen fundraising advantage of incumbents, reduce influence of special interests.

limiting political (free) speech. • No other city in Mass does this. • Might require a home rule petition. • A city could pass stricter laws than the state laws. • No follow-up hearing was scheduled during that term. undertaking." Willing to discuss further in a committee meeting. Memo from City Manager Rossi (10/15/14) • Public funds would have to be equally available to all qualifying candidates. and new audit and enforcement mechanisms. Described as a "considerable • Limits on campaign spending could pose First Amendment challenges if seen as • Any public financing program would require additional administrative oversight

chaired by Mazen. Carlone & Devereux (adopted 6/20/16) • Similar to the PO adopted two years earlier in June 2014. Policy Order in June 2016 by Mazen, Cheung, A year later, a new Council elected in 2015 • No open seats. 1 new councillor elected, bringing women from 1 to 2. • Referred to Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee,

matching funds. • No consensus among committee. • Councillors who attended: Mazen (chair), Carlone, McGovern & Devereux. NLIP Committee hearing (8/29/16) Speech for People/Represent US (supports matching grants to amplify diverse voices). • Ordered: The Law Dept was asked to look into what options might be legal in Cambridge. grants to candidates, based on collecting signatures and a certain number of small donations. mayor's race only), Common Cause (supports limits on spending) and a representative of Free • Mazen had been working with residents who had formed the Independent Working Group for are held in off-years; capping spending, and maybe limiting non-resident donations. Also the issue • Discussed impact of running citywide vs. district on amounts raised; low turnout because elections was raised of whether a large slate of candidates could exploit a matching funds program by pooling Campaign Finance Reform, which presented some ideas for how to offer publicly financed matching • Invited guests from New Haven Democracy Fund (public-private audit and matching funds group for

July & Aug 2017 deadline to be placed on the Nov. ballot. specifics as to the program, only the idea of public financing). Finance Reform to place a non-binding question on the Nov 2017 ballot to ask voters if they support a public-financing program (no • Petition circulated by the Independent Working Group for Campaign but Councillor Cheung exercised his charter right and so it missed the • The petition was introduced at the special summer meeting on 8/7/17

presented Tax returns required to be submitted. all due haste. No committee was ever appointed. I. Policy Order by Councillor Toomey on 9/11/17 (adopted) l. Policy Order by Councillor Cheung on 9/11/17 (adopted) • Asked the Law Dept to draft home rule petition to reflect this. Council's next meeting: 2 Policy Orders related to public financing • droppedat campaign spending increased in the 2015 election and the turnout $35K and $30K for Council), and would not allow donations from outside the state. • Asked the city manager to form a committee to be formed to report on options with • Expresses concern that "even with public financing" there is not a level playing field. • Suggests a voluntary "People's Pledge" that would limit amounts raised and spent (to

grants system? have to be voluntary. • What spending limits? • How will candidates qualify? • Policy questions still for Council to decide: • Solely tax funded or use some private donations? Memo from Law Dept (11/13/17) • Council needs to gather more input from the community about the details. • Is there a set amount distributed to qualifying candidates or is it a matching Rossi. Public financing would require a home rule petition and would • States that nothing in the law has changed since the 2014 memo from

• 14 candidates spent over $30K. • 3 open seats, 3 new councillors. • Some spent unprecedented amounts and lost. • See stats at: http://cambridgecivic.com/?p=5428 New council elected in Nov. 2017 • 9 women ran (record number) and 4 were elected. • 16 candidates in a field of 26 who raised over $20K. • The amounts spent in 2017 did not seem to correlate with winning.

for that. (adopted) grant program for low-income candidates only. they didn't give solely to candidates from 02138). • Reiterates that public financing can't create a level playing field. • Seems aimed at trying to amplify voices of those who don't have Policy Order by Councillor Toomey on 4/30/18 capacity to fund candidates but the funding program suggested doesn't • Re-submits a version of the Nov 2017 People's Pledge with a new block align with that goal. Matching grants or vouchers might be better suited • Notes that residents of 02138 accounted for more of the donations (but

over 2 years. continued: • Submit tax returns • Submit tax returns • No donors from outside Mass • No donors from outside Mass • Give back unspent public funds • $200 max contribution from any individual in 2 yrs • $200 max contribution from any individual in 2 yrs • And suggests again a voluntary People's Pledge for others: • Raise no more than $35K and spend no more than $30K over 2 years • This order also includes School Committee elections at lower limits. Councillor Toomey 4/30/18 Policy Order, • Asked City Solicitor to draft home rule petition & referred to Govt Ops committee. • They would get $15K grant and could raise no more than $20K and spend no more than $30K • New program for which only low-income residents are eligible with mandatory rules:

10/1/18) • This order prompted today's hearing. implementation by 11/19 Council meeting. Policy Order by Councillor Toomey (adopted • Reiterates request for a committee hearing and asks for a plan for

Each addresses different aims Public Funding Programs 3 Most Common Types of

Full funding gets a lump sum and agrees not to fundraise further. • However, if a candidate declines to participate, then they can far outspend (especially in Mass where $1000 donations are allowed). • Aims for candidate parity and for less time spent on fundraising. After meeting a threshold to demonstrate popular support, every candidate

engagement. $75, 4:1 in LA). Small Donor Matching limit if goal is to limit overall spending. • Have to have a robust match ratio to make it attractive for more Aims to amplify the voices of small donors and increases political • Aims to diversify the donor base and less time spent on fundraising. established candidates to participate (6:1 in NYC for donations up to • Candidates can conținue to raise money, so would need to set a total

Vouchers allowed and to what maximum? • Newest form, and as yet not much data. voters vouchers to spend on any candidate they wish. • Could help reduce time spent fundraising for some candidates. • Aims to increase and diversify voter engagement by giving all registered 52% the election before. Need to find out: Would non-voucher donations still be Cambridge, so a better estimate for us would be about $250k. Seattle said these vouchers cost ~$11 in extra taxes per household. Some results data: Only 13% of to $1.75 million. This sounds like a lot, but Seattle has about 7x the population of • Seattle just began this in 2017. A total of 70,000 $25 vouchers used. This adds up fundraising came from "large donors" in last year's city council race, compared to

participation? grant programs)? solve? • How can we better encourage greater voter engagement and to all running) or with the types of donors (vouchers or matching What is the problem we are most trying to • Which program or set of restrictions best address the perception of influence by special interests and non-residents with businesses ties? we unhappy with the types of candidates running (full funding grants • Which playing field is the most in need of leveling or diversifying? Are

time talking to and engaging voters? to qualify in any way other than being low-income? networks; incumbents have constituencies, making it harder (and based on collecting signatures and an amount of small donations? Questions and comments for consideration: running? It takes a lot of time to campaign - if you already have a job potentially expensive) for new candidates to reach across Cambridge. have an especially hard time. There is also the consideration of built-in and/or young children it can be hard to juggle both. Single parents could 3. Is money the main barrier to running or is time also a barrier to someone Wouldn't we want all candidates to spend less time fundraising and more 1. Is giving the block grants only to low-income residents legal? Do they have 2. Why wouldn't the grants be offered to any candidate regardless of income,

systems etc. incumbency. stone to running at-large for some candidates? the constant need for politicking were reduced? 5. $3OK seems low for a total spending cap over 2 years. Half (13) of the district - if we want more candidates from diverse areas and backgrounds candidates last cycle raised more than $30K. Could a too-low spending cap 4. Running citywide is more expensive and time-consuming than running in a reduce both candidate participation in the voluntary program and turnout? Incumbents have some expenses in the off-year to maintain websites, email 6. Term limits could help draw more people into races if there were open seats 7. Some incumbents raise significant funds in off-years -- that's an advantage of would it be better to consider district representation? Can that be a stepping Questions and comments for consideration: more often and more predictably. Would that also help "good government" if

a level field either. restricted would that help? ran them as slates and could create and promote a diverse ticket. 10. In prior eras, candidates had the backing and vetting of strong civic 8. Running every 2 years increases the amount of money going toward campaigns. If terms were 4 years and contributions in off-years were organizations (CCA and Independents), essentially party machines that Questions and comments for consideration: the polls may be more expensive when there aren't big marquee races. 11. Low turnout may be because we run in off-years and getting people to 9. Some candidates are able to loan their own campaigns money. That is not

program for Cambridge. and for using tax revenue to finance it? binding question on the 2019 ballot to assess the review programs in other cities and recommend a • Should we do that, with the goal of placing a non- • A prior order (Councillor Cheung's in 2017) asked the Possible next step to come out of this hearing: electorate's support for the program they recommend City Manager to form a working group or committee to

ATTACHMENTC City of Cambridge 0-4 Amended Order IN CITY COUNCIL April 30, 2018 COUNCILLOR TOOMEY WHEREAS: According to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, during the 2017 campaign year more ta candid aperine by candian s for canaci an activities totaling 533.20 per fil vote WHEREAS: The Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) recently reported that statewide "In calendar year 2017, the zip code with the highest amount of contributions of $1,000 or less was 02138" totaling $413,184; and WHEREAS: Other zip codes in Cambridge provided significantly lesser amounts of such contributions, pecifically 02139 55% of the 02138 total; 02140 39% of the 02138 total; 02141 14% of the 02138 total; and 02142 9% of the 02138 total; an‹ WHEREAS: it is desirous that candidates for Cambridge municipal elections receive a significant amount of their campaign contributions from residents of Cambridge, particularly from their neighbors, ut the impact of the socio-economic reality of very diverse median incomes by zip code an leighborhood inherently fosters an uneven playing field in the ability and the amount c WHEREAS: Potential public financing of municipal elections in Cambridge, does not, in and of itself, create a level playing field for municipal elections; now therefore be it

ORDERED: That the City of Cambridge develop a program the "Cambridge Publicly Financed Municipal Election Program" for City Council and School Committee candidates, the eligibility for which will be based on a candidate meeting certain income eligibility requirements, such as those utilized by the Cambridge Housing Authority or a similar eligibility indicator; That the program would provide: 1. An eligible candidate for City Council would receive $15,000, and for School Committee $10,000, for non-personnel related campaign expenditures; 2. Such candidates for City Council would raise no more than an additional $20,000 and candidates for School Committee would raise no more than an additional $15,000 during the two-year municipal election cycle; said amount raised to be used for any valid campaign expense authorized by the OCPF; 3. Such candidates for City Council would expend in the aggregate no more than $30,000 and candidates for School Committee would expend in the aggregate no more than $20,000 during the two-year municipal election cycle; 4. Such candidates for City Council and candidates for School Committee would agree to accept no more than $200 from an individual during the two-year municipal election cycle; 5. Such candidates would release a copy of their most recent Federal tax return within 45 days of being certified as a candidate for City Council or School Committee; 6. Such candidates would agree not to accept donations from persons residing outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; 7. Such candidates shall return to the City of Cambridge any unspent amounts of publicly funded campaign funds within 60 days of the date of the municipal election and be subject to audit to ensure compliance with regulations of the program; and be it further ORDERED: That, in concert with the "Cambridge Publicly Financed Municipal Election Program", or as a standalone program, the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Cambridge Election Commission to establish an official "Cambridge Municipal Election People's Pledge" program, which would be voluntary and include the following components: 1. Candidates for City Council would expend no more than $30,000 and candidates for School Committee would expend no more than $20,000 during the two-year municipal election cycle; 2. Candidates for City Council would raise no more than $35,000 and candidates for School Committee would raise no more than $25,000 during the two-year municipal election cycle; 3. Candidates for City Council and candidates for School Committee would agree to accept no more than $200 from an individual during the two-year municipal election 4. Candidates for City Council and School Committee would release a copy of their most recent Federal tax return within 45 days of being certified as a candidate for City Council or School Committee; 5. Candidates for City Council and School Committee would agree not to accept donations from persons residing outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and be it further

That the Election Commission would establish a program to notify the voters which candidates ORDERED: ORDERED: That the Election Commission would determine the feasibility of including such information on the Municipal ballot; and be it further ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to draft any required Home Rule legislation to be submitted to the City Council on this matter; and be it further ORDERED: That this matter be referred to Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee. In City Council April 30, 2018. Adopted as amended by the affirmative vote of nine members. Attest:- Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk A true copy; ATTEST:- Danna P. Kape Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk

ATTACHMENT D I'd like to thank the Vice Mayor for scheduling this hearing. There is no doubt that campaign finance reform is needed in this City. Elections in Cambridge have become too expensive and too professional. While there is a need to control donations, there wouldn't be need to amass a large amount of donations if costs were reduced. Unfortunately, the US Constitution prohibits capping expenses. And we have certainly have had many conversations on this important issue and hopefully this council can implement a campaign finance reform. During the campaign year of 2017: $860,000 was spent by all the candidates and seven candidates spent more than $50,000 each and 3 candidates spent more than $85,000 each. These amounts are staggering. In addition, what is equally concerning to me is that the significant socio-economic disparity between our neighborhoods and the ability for a candidate to raise campaign funds from the residents in their neighborhoods. For example, according to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, in the last 10 months alone, residents in the 02138 zip code, provided the highest amount of political contributions State-wide political totaling approximately $495,000. By comparison, residents Of 02139 provided approximately$181,000, 02140, $140,000, 02142 $66, 000 and 02141 $36,000. The same significant disparity held true for 2017. There is a major donation potential discrepancy for candidates from various neighborhoods in Cambridge and our citizens deserve to have a socio-economic diverse council representing them. We need to "think out of the box" to resolve these issues, invent a totally new framework for campaign finance for local elections. State & Federal elections, which involve much more complicated issues is not something this council can solve, but we have the power to address our own problems. That is why I am proposing two programs that need to work in tandem, the "Cambridge Publicly Financed Municipal Election Program" which will provide funds for those in less affluent neighborhoods and controls costs, and the "Cambridge Municipal Election People's Pledge" which would voluntarily reduce costs and donations. The "Cambridge Publicly Financed Municipal Election Program" would directly address the impact of the socio-economic reality of very diverse median incomes in various city neighborhoods. Let me be very clear though: public financing of municipal elections, does not, in itself, create a level playing field for municipal elections. Public financing systems alone will only exacerbate the problem because other non-publicly financed candidates will just raise more money, the playing field will never be leveled, and special interests will become even more important. 1

The "Cambridge Municipal Election People's Pledge" is designed to provide a voluntary, onstitutonal, means of capping expenses and therefore reducing the amount of funds. I'v ooked back and in recent elections and I am flabbergasted on how much I've increasingly had t pena. II both these programs are implemented, I would 100% sign this pledge today. I believe hat these combined programs will go a long way to attaining the goal of (1) holding down campaign expenses (2) reducing the need for major fundraising (3) reducing the impact of special interests and (4) maximizing the influence of community participation in our elections. With the help of the following presentation let me briefly outline how each program would work Both programs will be very simple to set up and operate. First let me outline the "Cambridge Publicly Financed Election Program". Eligibility for this program would be based on a candidate meeting certain eligibility requirements, such as those utilized by the Cambridge Housing Authority or a similar eligibility indicator 1. An eligible candidate for City Council would receive $15,000, and for School Committee $10,000, for non-personnel related campaign expenditures 2. Such candidates for City Council would raise no more than an additional $20,000 and candidates for School Committee would raise no more than an additional $15,000 during the two-year municipal election cycle; said amount raised to be used for any valid campaign expense authorized by the OCPF 3. Such candidates for City Council would expend in the aggregate no more than $30,000 and candidates for School Committee would expend in the aggregate no more than $20,000 during the two-year municipal election cycle 4. Such candidates for City Council and candidates for School Committee would agree to accept no more than $200 from an individual during the two-year municipal election cycle; 5. Such candidates would release a copy of their most recent Federal tax return within 45 days of being certified as a candidate for City Council or School Committee; 6. Such candidates would agree not to accept donations from persons residing outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 7. Such candidates shall return to the City of Cambridge any unspent amounts of publicly funded campaign funds within 60 days of the date of the municipal election and be subject to audit to ensure compliance with regulations of the program 2

Next, let me outline the "Cambridge Municipal Election People's Pledge" 1. Participating candidates for City Council would agree to expend no more than $30,000 and candidates for School Committee would agree to expend no more than $20,000 during the two-year municipal election cycle; 2. Candidates for City Council would agree to raise no more than $35,000 and candidates for School Committee would agree to raise no more than $25,000 during the two-year municipal election cycle; 3. Candidates for City Council and candidates for School Committee would agree to accept no more than $200 from an individual during the two-year municipal election cycle; 4. Candidates for City Council and School Committee would release a copy of their most recent Federal tax return within 45 days of being certified as a candidate for City Council or School Committee; 5. Candidates for City Council and School Committee would agree not to accept donations from persons residing outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts In addition, - the Election Commission would establish a program to notify the voters which candidates are participating in the "Cambridge Municipal Election People's Pledge" program, mailing such information to voters 10 days before the date of the municipal election and prominently displaying such information on the Cambridge Municipal website; and be it further - the Election Commission would determine the feasibility of including such information on the Municipal ballot; and be it further - And finally, the City Manager would be requested to instruct the City Solicitor to draft any required Home Rule legislation to be submitted to the City Council on this matter Let me conclude by responding to questions I have been asked about each of these programs. On the "Cambridge Publicly Financed Election Program" 1. Why limit publicly financed amounts to non personnel items? 3

I have always been concerned about potential abuse on public funds - such as hiring your spouse to be a campaign manager and essentially pocketing the funds. By restriction to "hard costs" such as printing, postage, social media advertising, food for volunteers, etc, this go a long way towards reducing any potential abuse. I will not support any publicly campaign financing that doesn't provide these safeguards. 2. Doesn't this put candidate at disadvantage at not having a campaign manager? No - they can raise additional funds for this purpose up to the limit and use volunteers. Most of my early School Committee and City Council campaigns relied on a volunteer campaign manager. I've looked back in recent elections and I am appalled how much I have increasingly spent on professional managers. We need to put an end to this cycle. 3. Why can you raise up to $35,000 but only spend $30,000? Flexibility on how you want to spend your funds. Candidate could decide to spend $20,000 raised on a campaign manager and only $10,000 of the publicly financed funds on non personnel and would return the excess $5,000 of public funds back to the City. This probably wouldn't occur but the point is we need to give candidates some flexibility 4. Isn't this very complicated? Not at all, and probably less complicated than other publicly financed election programs. On the Cambridge Municipal Election People's Pledge" I've been asked 1. Can't a candidate, by not participating, raise and spend as much as they want and thus have an advantage? Yes they can raise and expend as much as they want but the power of public opinion that they are doing so will help to reduce that advantage. In conclusion, will these combined programs really have an effect? Nothing is perfect but these combined programs will go a long way to attaining the goal of holding down campaign expenses, 4

reducing the need for major fundraising, reducing the impact of special interest and maximizing the influence of community participation in our elections, and "level the playing field" inherent in the socio-economic reality of very diverse median incomes in our neighborhoods. When I introduced these program last April, I stated that any such municipal campaign finance proposals best be handled in a non municipal election year. We still have time to approve an implement them before the start of the next municipal campaign season. I look forward to this discussion and answering any questions that my colleagues may have.

ATMACHMENTE November 14, 2018 Government Operations/Rules and Claims "Cambridge Publicly Financed Election Program" & "Cambridge Municipal Election People's Pledge"

7. 2. 4. Commonwealth of Massachusetts the two-year municipal election cycle for non-personnel related campaign expenditures ensure compliance with regulations of the program being certified as a candidate for City Council or School Committee; Such candidates would agree not to accept donations from persons residing outside the aulhorzed by the &pe; said almount rased to be used or any valid campaign expon ear "Cambridge Publicly Financed Election Program" campaign funds within 60 days of the date of the municipal election and be subject to audit to Such candidates shall return to the City of Cambridge any unspent amounts of publicly funded 5. Such candidates would release a copy of their most recent Federal tax return within 45 days of Such candidates for City Council would raise no more than an additional $20,000 and candidates An eligible candidate for City Council would receive $15,000, and for School Committee $10,000,

Committee; persons residing outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts than $200 from an individual during the two-year municipal election cycle; 2. Candidates for City Council would raise no more than $35,000 and candidates for School Committee would raise no more than $25,000 during the two-year municipal election cycle; "Cambridge Municipal Election People's Pledge" Federal tax return within 45 days of being certified as a candidate for City Council or School 1. Candidates for City Council would expend no more than $30,000 and candidates for School Candidates for City Council and School Committee would agree not to accept donations from 4. Candidates for City Council and School Committee would release a copy of their most recent Committee would expend no more than $20,000 during the two-year municipal election cycle; Candidates for City Council and candidates for School Committee would agree to accept no more

Municipal ballot such information on the Cambridge Municipal website Other Considerations Home Rule legislation to be submitted to the City Council on this matter participating in the "Cambridge Municipal Election People's Pledge" program, mailing such • That the Election Commission would determine the feasibility of including such information on the information to voters 10 days before the date of the municipal election and prominently displaying • That the Election Commission would establish a program to notify the voters which candidates are • That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to draft any required

Lopez, Donna ATTACHIMENTE From: Pallavi Yennapu < [email removed]> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 7:47 AM To: City Council; City Manager; Lopez, Donna Campaign Finance Comments Subject: Hi there, I'm Pallavi from Backyard Cambridge, and I have another comment from a subscriber from the texting service we've been piloting. I asked subscribers their thoughts on the campaign finance discussion from last week and Councilor Toomey's campaign finance proposal. One subscriber replied saying that they thought campaign finance reform was something that Cambridge needed to work on. Best, Pallavi Pallavi Yennapu Sales and Marketing Backyard Media