Candidate for Mayor in 2007? Looks Hopeless?

Wow, $4915, that's really outrageous! And what makes it doubly outrageous is that before July 1, the filing fee would have only been $3776.32 -- July 1 being the date that the political appointees on the Civil Service Commission gave the mayor and other city employees fat pay increases including bumping the mayor's salary from $188,816 (of which $3776.32 is 2%) to $245,749 a year:

http://www.examiner.com/a-752331~City_officials_to_receive_big_salary_bumps.html

  I wonder whether part of the motivation for those increases was precisely to deter potential mayoral challengers with higher filing fee costs? It's easy to envision a scenario where someone like a little-known Republican -- or a Libertarian, for that matter -- cuts into Newsom's support among fiscal conservatives by a few points, thus denying him the outright majority of first-round votes that he will need in order to avoid a run-off election with the most popular leftist who runs against him. For such candidates, another $1200 or so out-of-pocket could make the difference between running and not running.

  I also wonder whether there is any way to challenge this civil service action. If it were possible to even delay their B.S. move in court until after the filing period, this might save candidates a bunch of money. Does anyone have the list of the mayoral candidates who have so far filed for mayor from the Elections Department? The other candidates should be informed about this, in case one of them, or a group of them, wish to mount a lawsuit or otherwise challenge the pay raise or its timing.

  On the other hand, I know they passed public financing for the mayor's race a couple years ago, but don't recall whether such funds can be used to cover a candidate's filing fees. Does anyone know the answer to that? Normally I don't like public financing of campaigns and would not accept such money unless I could figure out a way to get it back to taxpayers, but if it's money that has to be paid to the government just in order to run, I see a strong argument for letting government cover the filing fee with public financing money (which it has already stolen) rather than giving them additional money by paying that poll tax.

  By the way Josh, if you don't mind me asking, have you paid your filing fee, or are you getting signatures, or both? What do you think of all this? Eric, I'm assuming you haven't paid yet -- what are your thoughts, and what do you plan to do?

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

On Jul 15, 2007, at 9:23 PM, Amarcy D. Berry wrote:._,_.___

The irony, of course, being that the same "powers that be" which impose ridiculous sign-up fees of thousands of dollars (or mandate the collection of thousands of signatures, which is effectively the same thing) will whine and complain about how "money has infected the political process" and how "only wealthy candidates are running for office."

It reminds me of the Washington state Senate race last election, where the media, after imposing a $1 million + minimum campaign funds requirement to participate in the debates, asked candidates how they could justify the fact that everyone on stage was a millionaire. Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

Cheers,

Brian

Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Wow, $4915, that's really outrageous! And what makes it doubly outrageous is that before July 1, the filing fee would have only been $3776.32 -- July 1 being the date that the political appointees on the Civil Service Commission gave the mayor and other city employees fat pay increases including bumping the mayor's salary from $188,816 (of which $3776.32 is 2%) to $245,749 a year:

http://www.examiner.com/a-752331~City_officials_to_receive_big_salary_bumps.html

I wonder whether part of the motivation for those increases was precisely to deter potential mayoral challengers with higher filing fee costs? It's easy to envision a scenario where someone like a little-known Republican -- or a Libertarian, for that matter -- cuts into Newsom's support among fiscal conservatives by a few points, thus denying him the outright majority of first-round votes that he will need in order to avoid a run-off election with the most popular leftist who runs against him. For such candidates, another $1200 or so out-of-pocket could make the difference between running and not running.

I also wonder whether there is any way to challenge this civil service action. If it were possible to even delay their B.S. move in court until after the filing period, this might save candidates a bunch of money. Does anyone have the list of the mayoral candidates who have so far filed for mayor from the Elections Department? The other candidates should be informed about this, in case one of them, or a group of them, wish to mount a lawsuit or otherwise challenge the pay raise or its timing.

On the other hand, I know they passed public financing for the mayor's race a couple years ago, but don't recall whether such funds can be used to cover a candidate's filing fees. Does anyone know the answer to that? Normally I don't like public financing of campaigns and would not accept such money unless I could figure out a way to get it back to taxpayers, but if it's money that has to be paid to the government just in order to run, I see a strong argument for letting government cover the filing fee with public financing money (which it has already stolen) rather than giving them additional money by paying that poll tax.

By the way Josh, if you don't mind me asking, have you paid your filing fee, or are you getting signatures, or both? What do you think of all this? Eric, I'm assuming you haven't paid yet -- what are your thoughts, and what do you plan to do?

Love & Liberty,
    <<< starchild >>>

On Jul 15, 2007, at 9:23 PM, Amarcy D. Berry wrote:._,_.___

Huuummmm. So we need not worry about endorsing anyone (unless someone
out there comes up with a $4,000 donation). Thank you for the
research, Marc.

Marcy

After Saturday's meeting, I consulted the SF candidates guide (at

http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/elections/candidates/FinalAllCandida

teGuide.pdf)

and learned the following on pages 9 and 10:

(1) The filing fee for Mayoral candidates is $4,915, which is 2%

of the

position's salary.

(2) While this fee can be reduced or eliminated by collecting

signatures,

at the rate of 50 cents per signature, the filing deadline for

signatures is

less than two weeks away - July 26. A total of 9830 valid

signatures would

have to be presented to fully waive the filing fee.

Unless someone has already made a serious start at raising the funds or
gathering the signatures by now, it's hard for me to see how anyone

friendly

to the views of the SFLP could get on the ballot now.

.

Does anyone need help in SF gathering signatures for
an election or proposal?

I am busy this week, but the week of the 23rd of July
or later I can help. Also, is Newsom fiscal
conservative or just has done some things to garner
their support? Is he better than or equal to Willie
Brown? I am curious about SF city politics.

-TJ Campbell
Mountain View, CA
650-949-1802

  Wow, $4915, that's really outrageous! And what
makes it doubly
outrageous is that before July 1, the filing fee
would have only been
$3776.32 -- July 1 being the date that the political
appointees on
the Civil Service Commission gave the mayor and
other city employees
fat pay increases including bumping the mayor's
salary from $188,816
(of which $3776.32 is 2%) to $245,749 a year:

http://www.examiner.com/

a-752331~City_officials_to_receive_big_salary_bumps.html

  I wonder whether part of the motivation for those
increases was
precisely to deter potential mayoral challengers
with higher filing
fee costs? It's easy to envision a scenario where
someone like a
little-known Republican -- or a Libertarian, for
that matter -- cuts
into Newsom's support among fiscal conservatives by
a few points,
thus denying him the outright majority of
first-round votes that he
will need in order to avoid a run-off election with
the most popular
leftist who runs against him. For such candidates,
another $1200 or
so out-of-pocket could make the difference between
running and not
running.

  I also wonder whether there is any way to challenge
this civil
service action. If it were possible to even delay
their B.S. move in
court until after the filing period, this might save
candidates a
bunch of money. Does anyone have the list of the
mayoral candidates
who have so far filed for mayor from the Elections
Department? The
other candidates should be informed about this, in
case one of them,
or a group of them, wish to mount a lawsuit or
otherwise challenge
the pay raise or its timing.

  On the other hand, I know they passed public
financing for the
mayor's race a couple years ago, but don't recall
whether such funds
can be used to cover a candidate's filing fees. Does
anyone know the
answer to that? Normally I don't like public
financing of campaigns
and would not accept such money unless I could
figure out a way to
get it back to taxpayers, but if it's money that has
to be paid to
the government just in order to run, I see a strong
argument for
letting government cover the filing fee with public
financing money
(which it has already stolen) rather than giving
them additional
money by paying that poll tax.

  By the way Josh, if you don't mind me asking, have
you paid your
filing fee, or are you getting signatures, or both?
What do you think
of all this? Eric, I'm assuming you haven't paid yet
-- what are your
thoughts, and what do you plan to do?

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

On Jul 15, 2007, at 9:23 PM, Amarcy D. Berry
wrote:._,_.___

> Huuummmm. So we need not worry about endorsing
anyone (unless someone
> out there comes up with a $4,000 donation). Thank
you for the
> research, Marc.
>
> Marcy
>
> --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, "Marc
Joffe" <joffemd@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > After Saturday's meeting, I consulted the SF
candidates guide (at
> >
>

http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/elections/candidates/

Newsom is a "fiscal conservative" as long as that means his supporters
get all the perks of government money and power...as compared with
challengers who believe their constituents should get all the perks of
government money and power.....

Gavin Newsom will never be what Willie Brown was....Willie was one of
the smartest, most cynical and political people ever to walk the earth.
But that is not necessarily a compliment. He was always in it for Willie
but he made sure plenty was left on the table for those who helped to
get him there.

Willie Brown was a street tough who worked his way through law school as
a janitor. Gavin never had to work that hard. His dad was a federal
judge who managed the Getty money.

Mike