Do We Need Spending Limits In Mapewood Politics?

Term limits?

If it's true as reported that candidate Lembrich spent $32,000.00 perhaps it is spending limits that are needed.

LOST said:

Term limits?

If it's true as reported that candidate Lembrich spent $32,000.00 perhaps it is spending limits that are needed.

Don't see how they could hurt, and can see how they might help. 

Who would monitor the spending limits?  Would such a layer of oversight create more problems than it might intend to solve?

Theoldtimer said:

LOST said:

Term limits?

If it's true as reported that candidate Lembrich spent $32,000.00 perhaps it is spending limits that are needed.

Don't see how they could hurt, and can see how they might help. 

Absolutely.  I can think of a lot of civic minded people who we would be lucky to have on the TC who could never afford spendingn17k of their own money to run.  If the goal is to attract new blood and diversity to the TC then spending limits would go along way towards doing that.

I think the bigger issue is the relatively low turn-out at elections and at public meetings, not so much how people run and for how many terms.

I suppose you can make the case that given the ability to use the internet and social media, candidates only need to spend so much, and that a lot of the tactics such as lawn signs are an excessive use of paper and money, but I'm not sure that putting a cap on spending will significantly change the make-up of the TC or materially benefit the community.

In S.O., Alex Torpey ran a relatively low-cost campaign (I think) and brought "new blood" and diversity in terms of his age. Fairly or not, I'm not sure many S.O. residents look at that as a spectacularly successful tenure.

joan_crystal said:

Who would monitor the spending limits?  Would such a layer of oversight create more problems than it might intend to solve?

Perhaps. How about a Committee with you as Chair? I'd be for that.

joan_crystal said:

Who would monitor the spending limits?  Would such a layer of oversight create more problems than it might intend to solve?

Aren't public disclosures about this kind of spending already public record? If so, does that mean that there is already a mechanism in place to monitor ... 

But, yes, I would support this. 

Even if there were such a mechanism in place for hyper-local elections, enforcement would not be that simple:

Suppose one or more of the special interest groups in town were to form a super pac in support of their candidate?  Would any money collected/spent by such an entity be subject to what ever spending cap was placed on the candidate of their choice?

Suppose a candidate were to receive an in-kind donation, i.e. printing services, lawn signs, media coverage, sound truck, etc., would the value of such donation be included under the spending cap?  If so, how would it be valued?

I agree with the above poster who wrote that an informed electorate that goes to the poles in large numbers and actually votes is much more crucial to the process than term limits or campaign spending caps.    

Not to be a lawyer or anything, but I'm pretty confident that spending limits (as opposed to donation limits) are not allowed.  Candidates, even for local office, have mandatory disclosures regarding their fundraising and spending.  In NJ, it is through ELEC, and anyone can look up the reports for any candidate on a publicly accessible website.  While state and federal law limit how much individuals and groups can donate to a campaign, they don't (and can't) limit how much a candidate can raise overall and/or how much he/she can spend of his/her own money.  I believe there are several cases holding that such limitations would be unconstitutional, so any town trying to create or enforce them wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.  

LOST said:

Term limits?

If it's true as reported that candidate Lembrich spent $32,000.00 perhaps it is spending limits that are needed.

I think it's up to the voters.  I'm not sure most voters think about candidate spending, nor does it concern them.  If it's an important issue, it should be brought up at the debates, and voters can ask the candidates when they're campaigning.  If a candidate ducks the question, voters can decide whether or not that's a deal breaker in casting a vote.

LOST said:

Term limits?

If it's true as reported that candidate Lembrich spent $32,000.00 perhaps it is spending limits that are needed.

touché

I hate to see these levels of spending on local campaigns. It must shut out many people who might otherwise consider running.  Is that what we want?

We certainly do not want to set an expectation where a prospective candidate feels they have to raise a significant amount of money in order to wage an effective campaign.  As has been pointed out above, a candidate who already has name recognition, a reviewable record of community service, and the time and willingness to get out there and meet the eligible voters does not need to raise nearly as money as someone who lacks one or more of these criteria.