I was wrong about the amount of public attention to this hearing. It was standing room only, with I'm guessing around 120 people present. Obviously the other side did a very good job of mobilizing their supporters. Perhaps 45 or so testified in favor of the legislation Supervisor Ross Mirkirimi will be carrying, representing a panoply of left-wing groups including the Living Wage Coalition, the Telegraph Hill Dwellers Association (allies of Aaron Peskin in the seizure of Brian O'Flynn's land in North Beach), the SEIU, the Harvey Milk and Alice B. Toklas Democratic Clubs, the Green Party, the Sierra Club, SPUR, San Francisco People's Organization, the League of Young Voters, the League of Pissed Off Voters which got special thanks for helping with the turnout (no fewer than half a dozen people there were wearing the group's t-shirts), a representative from Mark Leno's office, and several other groups I hadn't heard of previously -- Power PAC, TakeBackCA.org, and a San Francisco State group called Democracy Matters, whose representative rattled off the names of a whole bunch of groups and individuals from SFSU who were supporting the legislation including many in the student government, and Supervisor Mirkarimi himself.
At least a quarter of those who spoke praised the legislation, but said it didn't go far enough -- they wanted 100% public financing of campaigns. Out of everyone who testified, I was the only one who spoke in opposition to the proposed legislation. Unlike a number of public meetings, applause for speakers was tolerated, and many of the speakers drew extensive applause. In particular I noticed that the comments by the representative from SPUR (the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association) were warmly perceived, perhaps because SPUR is not a notably left-wing group. A SPUR supporting the legislation listed Mark Mosher of the pro-business Committee On Jobs on the letterhead as one of their many board members. I wondered how he felt about the proposal. After I spoke, I heard subdued clapping from two people. I suspect they were just being polite. At least I was not heckled or booed.
At the beginning of my comments, I emphasized that the Libertarian Party does support many voting reforms. I noted that we supported Steven Hill's previous campaign for Instant Run-Off Voting, and I personally worked on that campaign, and that we support voting for undocumented immigrants not just in school board elections, as was recently proposed, but in all elections. Perhaps this won me some sympathy. I went on to touch on our belief that government should be voluntary, and people should pay for the services they use rather than being forced to pay for things that go against their beliefs, and observed that people are already free to donate to candidates they support -- they should not be forced to donate to candidates they do not support. Then I focused on my main point, that the legislation as proposed is a direct hit on the little guy. I noted that I've run for office three times and never raised and spent more than $1000 in any race, but that I was not speaking for myself because I would probably not take the public money even if I was eligible to do so, because I believe it is immoral. However I said that this was my personal view, and it was a matter of trade-offs. I said that under the proposal, candidates who are already able to raise a substantial amount of money would get more; those who are unable to do so, perhaps because they represent minority views or are not well-connected to wealthy people able to donate, would get nothing. Finally I suggested that *at the very least*, if this plan is adopted, candidates who take part in any candidate forum or debate which is not open to all candidates for the office for which he or she is campaigning should be *ineligible* to receive public financing.
After the public comments were over, one of the commissioners, a black man named Waukeen McCoy, asked the principal authors, Steven Hill and Rob Arnow, to address my contention that the proposal would hurt small candidates. Arnow responded that he understood Libertarians to be for very small government, and that we were opposed to any public financing. I asked to be allowed to respond, and stated that although this was true, my opposition was not just based on principle, but on the fact that the proposal was anti-democratic, and would discriminate against minor and poorly funded candidates in favor of better funded ones. Then Steven Hill was allowed to speak, and he said in essence that there was not sufficient money in the budget to give money to all candidates, so they had to settle for a partial measure. I asked for 10 seconds to respond, in order to say that in that case, the money they *were* proposing to spend should be evenly allocated among *all* candidates, but at that point discussion was closed and as there was already a motion on the floor, the matter immediately went to a vote. All five commissioners (McCoy, Chair Emi Gusukuma, Michele Anglade, Eileen Hansen, and Joe Lynn who is somewhat of a personal acquaintance) voted unanimously to recommend the legislation for adoption by the Board of Supervisors.
Naturally, everyone in the room started applauding and cheering. It was the kind of dispiriting moment that really makes you think the whole situation is utterly hopeless. If there had been one other person there in opposition, the ratio might have been 60 to 1 instead of 120 to 1. Two other people, and it could have been 40 to 1 -- even better if those people had also spoken. But to realize that you're the only person in a room of over 100 who "gets it" is a lonely and sobering experience. I spoke to several of the commissioners afterward, and they all seemed brimming over with politeness and willingness to hear me, including Hansen, a nice, left-leaning lady who was one of my opponents in the 2002 Supervisor race -- but of course that and $1.00 will get you a cup of coffee.
The only upshot is that I was interviewed by a young black guy named William Walker with KPFA, a leftist radio station out of Berkeley, who seemed non-hostile and prepared to hear my side. He said he'd actually met me before, when he was working with the Coleman Advocates -- perhaps in regard to the nightlife issue. Anyway, he gave me lots of time to give him my take on it, and said that he'd be submitting his report for their news broadcast tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. I'm cautiously optimistic that what I said will be given a fair airing. Probably with the kind of numbers in support at the hearing, even the leftist press will feel able to be somewhat magnanimous.
As I was leaving the building, I encountered a candlelight vigil on the steps of City Hall. It was a mostly black group protesting violence in the Fillmore and Bayview and other neighborhoods, and trying to get politicians to pay more attention to it. A brochure listed demands including school improvements (gang prevention and education programs, grief counselors, safe havens, etc.), more youth jobs programs, community policing, and a moratorium on the death penalty.
I was hoping there might be an opportunity for people from the crowd to speak -- naturally, Proposition H came to mind -- but there wasn't. However I did see a satellite TV van from Noticias (Channel 14), a bilingual Spanish/English TV station. I got to speak to their reporter and talked a little bit about the self-defense issue, but she said it would be up to their editor whether she'd be able to include any of that or not. At least she seemed willing to listen, so there's a chance her broadcast might include something on that note.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>