Blogging Bayport Alameda

December 14, 2016

Barrier riff

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:04 am

Interesting.  I just looked at the City Council meeting agenda for next week and noticed that the title for the very last Tony Daysog Council Referral had totally changed.  As a reminder, the last time we saw it on the agenda it was listed as “Campaign Finance Reform” which it really wasn’t.

Now the title of the referral is more reflective of what it actually is:

Consider Directing the City Clerk to Work with the City Attorney in Crafting an Ordinance to Provide City Funding to Pay Administrative Election Costs to Reduce Financial Barriers of Running for Office.  (Councilmember Daysog) [Not heard on December 6, 2016]

However while some of the language was changed from the original to reflect the more appropriate description there was one place where it wasn’t changed which was here:

[E] Referencing the short-name of this ordinance (“local campaign finance reform”) and the Ordinance number, the City Clerk shall include the above information [A through D] in any notices to the public (including the electronic and print media) pertaining to informing residents of filing periods and requirements for City Council, Mayoral, City Treasurer, and City Auditor up-coming elections.

Which might have not been removed in the revise, but still exists there.

While I could be convinced that lowering the barrier to entry would be a good thing to help bring a more diverse set of candidates to our elections, the big missing part of this Council Referral is where the money would come from to pay for these costs which would normally be paid for by campaigns themselves.

Also, as long as we have candidates with the ability to self-finance, have ties to friends and colleagues with money, have ties to larger organizations with money, or have the bully pulpit of the office to make favorable decisions for potential donors; this lowering of the barriers to entry really doesn’t address the key issue that would arise for a fresh faced newcomer which is having the ability to compete against folks with money or people with deep ties to organizations with political clout.



  1. The Jarvis group filed suit on Monday to invalidate SB 1107 (which partially repeals the ban on the State or localities using public funds to finance electoral campaigns) signed by Gov. Brown in Sept. I understand the argument to be that SB 1107 is an attempt of the Legislature to go around the voter initiative that imposed the ban.

    Comment by MP — December 14, 2016 @ 7:02 am

    • The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association has never taken responsibility for the ruinous state of education and other services in California that it has wreaked upon our once-fair and once-well-governed state.

      Comment by Jon Spangler — December 16, 2016 @ 11:02 pm

  2. The barrier to run for Alameda School Board does not exist. AUSD is the only school district in the county that pays for all of the administrative costs associated with filing to run for office. In the November election those costs will be between $2,000 and $2,500.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — December 14, 2016 @ 7:38 am

    • Tony’s proposal makes sense since both council and school board are volunteer positions in Alameda. There is already precedent with AUSD covering the filing fees.

      Comment by Alan — December 14, 2016 @ 12:32 pm

  3. Can someone please explain to me why Alameda can’t just cap all campaign expenses? For example, all candidates for a given position can spend no more than $xxx and it can come from any source that is still reported as it is now.

    Comment by Nancy Hird — December 14, 2016 @ 8:07 pm

    • Because that has been ruled unconstitutional

      Comment by jkw — December 15, 2016 @ 8:45 am

      • ^ details.

        Comment by BMac — December 15, 2016 @ 9:36 am

  4. I think these two anonymous mailers have, in a way, done a favor to Tony Daysog and his supporters. It allows him, and them, to assign all responsibility for his loss to a couple pieces of junk mail in a month where people received literally hundreds of these things and paid little attention unless they are already an active partisan.

    The candidate doesn’t have to accept responsibility that after 14 years on the Council, perhaps voters have had a chance to evaluate his performance and think he has not gotten the job done to their satisfaction. His supporters can point fingers and not face the reality that a majority of Alamedans do not agree with the views expressed in conversations at Elks Club dinners. It gives him a narrative to use for his next campaign, playing the victim and underdog in a way that few people that have spent the better part of two decades in power can.

    Comment by BMac — December 15, 2016 @ 9:41 am

    • Thank you, BMac. The reason for Tony Daysog’s loss have everything to do with his long-winded but inconsistent performance and lack of genuine leadership while in office. The former City Council member might also pause to reflect on the fact that there were many valid reasons that his bids for higher office never went anywhere. (Hint: the former council member’s performance over 14 years did not measure up.)

      Comment by Jon Spangler — December 16, 2016 @ 11:10 pm

      • how about, “”renters revenge”.

        Comment by John P. — December 17, 2016 @ 10:41 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at