Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

Keighran’s Defense of Status Quo

Why is Ann Keighran so opposed to limiting campaign contributions? Several other local cities have done so without issue. Is it that she is afarid that she is the one known to have purchased her council seat by spending over $40,000 in the 2005 election? And who knows how much in in-kind donations or reduced charges for materials etc she benefitted from?

Let's be frank, her opposition is due to the fact the she knows she can raise a lot of money from developers and contractors and she doesn't want to be limited by smaller donations. Smaller donations may mean she will have to compete in a different way with challengers, such as on the basis of ideas and the wearing out of shoeleather.

Councilmember Keighran should stop obfuscating and start engaging in a frank discusssion about leveling the electoral playing field in this small community.

– Written by politicalblunder

Posted in ,

32 responses to “Keighran’s Defense of Status Quo”

  1. fred

    Well, from the newspaper articles I didn’t get the feeling that she was opposed as much as making sure the caps didn’t benefit certain candidates. Crescent Creative was a huge player in the last election. The contribution of that business and the Citizen’s for a Better Burlingame played heavily into the results. CBB will claim all involvement was not on the organizational level but independent from their functions as a group, however they seem most active during election periods. Is any of that voluntary contribution by business or resident quantified into campaign spending?

    The timing of the cap would have an effect on the next election. If that is the case it would benefit the two incumbents and make it harder for newcomers to get into the political arena and get their name out there. If it were two open seats the next election it would be much fairer than limiting new candidates facing two incumbents. The push right now should be on the bond measure but I also notice the push for campaign finance reform by November is strong as well.

    Why bite off Ann Keighran’s head just because she can see some political maneuvering involved with the timing and scope of the campaign reform? At least she is paying attention.

  2. Anonymous

    This gets too complicated, any way you slice it. Clearly, the costs involved for mailers and lawn signs and postage are major. It borders on obscene.

    I have to say that I am culpable myself for donating generously to several candidates who ran the last time. In retrospect, it seems very excessive and wasteful. It was discouraging to see all the glossies in the recycle bins–just more junk mail when there are so many worthy causes.

    Maybe it would be good to work backwards. Estimate the cost for say 200 signs (I just picked a number, maybe that is too many). The cost of just 2 mailings (whatever the sort, but let’s save some trees) and of course, the postage involved for ‘likely voters’ and figure out a rough range that allows a candidate to do the above, if they so choose. There’s a lot of precinct walking involved (often volunteers) and that printed matter needs to be calculated also. If the amount is already tremendous, like over 25K, I suspect it needs to be cut back to a suggested range, and it should be on the honor system. I don’t think a candidate should be penalized for designing their own work–other candidates have more help in other areas. Honestly, I think It all evens out.

    I did like the voluntary limits set by Nagel last time around, it stuck out as the right thing to do. If I recall, she said she wouldn’t accept donations from outside developers. I thought that was impressive from my point of view. I’d like to see more of that, regardless of who is running. I think honesty goes a long way in a small town.

  3. Anonymous

    First threader, perhaps you were not there at the meeting last night. I was.

    If you were present you know damn well that Mrs. Keighran brought up some good points, including in-kind services. The point about incumbents vs. new challengers and also the number of candidates running is also an important sum to put into the mix as was the discussion about slate mailing. The discussion was frank and nobody was skirting the issue and everyone was paying attention. We want our councilmembers (one was missing) to ask important questions and even disagree with each other without being cut off. A very interesting and healthy debate!

  4. Myles

    How much time did Cohen donate to Baylock when she ran the 1st time? $5,000?

    How much time did Jennifer give in donated time? $2000 to $3000.

    How much free pringing did the PIP lady give Cathy and Russ during the last election?

    The ONLY reason Cohen and the Mayor support this is to make sure they have the best chance on being re elected. They open their mouths and it hits the front page of the newxpapers. How does an ousider compete against that? They can’t, so the reason it passed in other towns is because those council members wanted to make it easier for them to remain on their city councils. It is self serving, just like the current city council wants to be, SELF SERVING.

  5. colhenry

    Without a doubt, spending caps benefit incumbents. That’s just the way it works. Challengers need all of the exposure they can get. And they can get it by spending big on media.

  6. sue

    How can anyone in this small town political atmosphere feel it necessary to spend the kind of money that was spent by some in the last election? Maybe if the donors and the dollars were posted before the election, the voters would know where the candidate’s real allegiances lie. I agree with Jen…it is obscene that this kind of spending takes place for an election in this small Podunk town.

  7. Anonymous

    Sue, it is possible to see the how the monies are spent BEFORE the election in the Form 460’s which every candidate has to complete showing where the monies/in-kind services are coming from and how the monies are being spent. The public can obtain copies of each candidate’s completed 460 through the City Clerk. The pre-election 460’s are obviously not the full story because there is a further 460 which has to be filled out by each candidate AFTER the election.

    Some of the discussion at the meeting yesterday was about having these 460’s on line – a very good idea. The 460’s are fascinating reading and available to ALL.

  8. KRN

    Spending caps benefit incumbents? It seems that incumbents have the greatest potential to raise money because they already have name recognition and understand (or control) the system. Contributors want to give to a winner and incumbents are the ones most likely to win.

    If spending caps were to benefit incumbents, then the United States Congress would have already passed these types of caps in order to retain power.

    What is the objective of the spending and fund raising caps?

    If people are spending large amounts of money to win one of these seats, there must be some benefit to the seat itself.

    As far as the “in kind” contributions are concerned, those should be treated like direct cash contributions. Printing, advertising, and other acts that normally come with a charge should be counted as a cash donation to a candidate. Labor is not an “in kind” donation and may be given in unlimited amounts.

  9. Anonymous

    Gee Myles, obviously you have a problem with the current council. I don’t think those are fair statements to any of them. Honestly, I cannot remember how much in-kind I gave to anyone’s campaign. But it was probably because at the time, I couldn’t give as much money as I’d wanted to–so, sweat equity. Some of these folks tried more than once to get in. Cohen is a gifted graphic artist, so he is more than capable of designing for himself. First timers almost always have a tough time competing with incumbents, so in-kind work is important to them. It also means people care enough about getting them elected to work hard for them. That is much harder work than writing a big check, at least I think so.

    I have a hard time understanding how this issue is self-serving to any of these people, running or not. I think the ones who should be concerned are the ones who are thinking about running. Where is their input? Maybe they have some ideas. Anyone with half a brain knows that these sums of money shouldn’t be necessary to get elected in a small place like Burlingame. It is very excessive.

  10. sue

    Yes, Fiona, and those 460’s give those who know that these forms are available to ALL the WHOLE picture, particularly AFTER the election, right?????????

  11. neighbor

    Someone wrote: It seems that incumbents have the greatest potential to raise money because they already have name recognition and understand (or control) the system.

    But I don’t think that was the case the last time around in Burlingame for the money spent. Weren’t the high spenders both newcomers? You could look at another newcomer like Steve Poizner spending a lot of his own money as another case.

    I don’t think there will ever be a good time to do this so now is as good a time as ever.

  12. Anonymous

    The 460’s are not the whole picture, just as the glossies, the election speeches, the debates, the candidate’s websites and election promises are not the whole picture about whether to vote for a candidate. The 460’s are important but, like many things, they can be incorrect, badly completed, confusing and they are open to “interpretation”! But there is no other way (other than endorsement lists which are sometimes overblown) to find out who believes in a candidate – and sometimes who doesn’t believe in a candidate!

  13. Anonymous

    You can’t fault this group of people for trying to right a wrong. It is just plain wrong that this kind of money is being spent here. It looks bad and it is bad. Good for them. I hope they come up with something everyone can agree on.

  14. fred

    Neighbor, not quite the point. The problem is the incumbents don’t have to spend as much money to get their name out there. They are in the newspapers almost daily. The newcomers would be the ones constrained by limits on spending. The newcomers need to spend a lot more money to get the same attention from the voters.

    I am for limits but I think it should take place after the November election. Nagel, Cohen and Baylock could get this passed prior to the next election, but that is what would seem self serving. This would give Nagel and Cohen an unfair advantage in the next election. If the majority of the council wants to be portrayed as instating campaign limits for the right reasons and not self serving reasons they will implement the reform after the next election.

  15. Myles

    Obviously Jen you did not understand my point. Per the article there is no way the city attorney can come up with something to stop the “donated time”. Your candidates put values on that time because your name was on their reports. No one can or should be able to stop anyone from working on someone’s campaign. That is everyone’s right.

    Why should there be an advantage for someone who doesn’t have to pay for printing because their “friend” will donate everything versus someone who has to pay for it. Why should someone have an advantage because they own the equipment to make lawn signs but someone else has to pay for theirs.

    Also, no one can stop a citizens group from organizing, raising money and paying for fliers and mailers for anyone that they support. It would be like legalizing the self appointed members of the Citizens for a Better Burlingae, having them raise money, which they already do, and have those funds go into their account. The new rules the council is talking about would not prohibit any group from forming and then raising and spending $100,000 per election. It can only tie the hands of someone running for office.

    The current council only wants to make limitations so they can remain in office. Any tyoe of legistation would only help them, but it won’t stop the big spending. You may not like it, but you have no right to control it.

    It also seems naive to ask for input for someone who may be running in the future. We are talking about “forever”, and who knows who might want to run in Nov of 09, or 2011 or 2013 ect. It is common knowledge that limitations hurt newby’s.

    Fiona: why don’t you do the reading group a favor and copy and show everyone’s campaign statements from the first time they ever ran for office until the last election? That information would be very informative.

  16. Anonymous

    At what point in time, then, will election reform be “ethical”. As far as I know, no other Council bothered with it and even those donations were becoming excessive. Do you just pretend it’s not a problem?

    I can’t see a good argument one way or the other to put this off. We are never talking “forever”. You do the best you can at the time. If it needs to be adjusted in the future, so be it. But you have to start somewhere.

  17. Anonymous

    Can we agree there is a PERCEIVED problem and rather than saying why we shouldn’t or cannot do something about it, why don’t we change the paradigm and throw out various ideas as to how you think it can be done. Kinda like a brain storm session.

    To start with, why couldn’t the City Attorney indicate what, by law, cannot be done and from there we could start contrubuting ideas.

    Personally I would not like the City Motto changed to something like: The City With The Best Government Money Can Buy.

  18. Anonymous

    Myles, I do not have the campaign statements (wish I did) because I donated all the past election papers to the Historical Society who I know has this information filed away in their Archives.

    Larry made a presentation full of statistics at the study session and indicated what could be done – by law.

  19. Anonymous

    Make an appointment for a visit in person, and someone there will be happy to help you. There are also many articles on politicians in Burlingame’s past–the good, the bad, the self-interested and unethical.

  20. Anonymous

    Myles
    You present some very interesting questions. I give up I don’t know the answer. Just how much did Cohen donate to Baylock the first time she ran? Just how many hours did Jennifer donate? And, how much free printing did the PIP lady give Cathy and Russ?

    Regarding the Citizens for a Better Burlingame, it is a State approved non-profit 504-C-4 (someone, please, correct me if I have the 504 status improperly stated) civic organization. CBB is a diversified group of residents who have a deep concern for the well being of the City. During the election there was a wide range of who was supporting whom within the CBB ranks. CBB did not endorse a specific candidate; as a matter of fact the CBB non-profit status prohibits CBB from endorsing a political candidate. Please read their Web Site to see what CBB has endorsed. I hope you are not suggesting a group of citizens cannot band together as a legal non-profit civic organization.

    Now, if you wish to establish a LEGAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, there is a set procedures for obtaining the PAC status. If your organization meets the state requirements to be PAC, you, too can contribute money to political candidates or causes, it is just that simple.

    You pose the question Why should there be an advantage for someone who doesn’t have to pay for printing because their “friend” will donate everything versus someone who has to pay for it. Why should someone have an advantage because they own the equipment to make lawn signs but someone else has to pay for theirs.? So are you saying donated time is not OK, but someone, who can get money from hither and yond is OK?

  21. fred

    “So are you saying donated time is not OK, but someone, who can get money from hither and yond is OK?”

    I think Myles is saying if you can’t limit group involvement you shouldn’t limit monetary involvement.

  22. bigmomma

    Since each person running for city council has/had a website, why don’t they post their 460’s to their website so that everyone can see who donated time and money. Is there anyway that we can see the current council’s from the last election? In open government, this would seem a no-brainer for them to do.

  23. Anonymous

    Great! And while were at it, let’s find the 460’s of past councilmembers, too! Various Unions, the Peninsula Coalition, developers etc. etc. How difficult could that be?

    As I said, the issue of big spending for elections isn’t new at all, but wanting to tackle it in Burlngame, is.

  24. Anonymous

    Love the idea of each candidate including their 460’s on their website. It will be a plus -and a minus – for us to see who believes in a particular candidate with either a check or in-kind donations. Too bad it won’t tell us who was on the list the last time around but is not a supporter in the 2007 election.

    Can this be done – legally or could it just be an agreement among the candidates?

  25. neighbor

    I think this talk is finally back to the original point of why Ann Keighran is defending the status quo? I’m not sure what a 460 is but I bet she doesn’t want it to be very available because it must not be very nice.

  26. Anonymous

    Neighbor, every 460 is “very available” at City Hall – just ask Doris, our City Clerk. I think you do have to pay the City for photocopying the forms but they are very available – even Mrs. Keighran’s.

    Mrs. K’s is not running in November but perhaps our two incumbents could start the ball rolling by offering to include their 460’s on their websites.

  27. Anonymous

    I have no objection whatsoever to posting past financial disclosure statements online. In fact, one suggestion I made at the recent study session is that the city scan and post all financial statements during elections as soon as they are submitted.

    Reading and analyzing these statements is time-consuming. Here’s a link to an analysis that the Burlingame Voice made regarding the 2003 campaign statements: http://www.burlingamevoice.com/main.php?Page=11&Id=10

    I have been advocating limits on campaign financing since the 2003 campaign, as I believe it is wasteful for a city our size to spend so much money electing City Council candidates. The city attorney tells us that the courts will not allow us to regulate campaign spending or contributions by political action committees. The least we can do is come up with some mutually agreed-upon limits regarding donations from individuals and corporations.

  28. Bobby

    Terry:

    If you raised $15,000 in the last election, don’t you feel obligated to those individuals and companies who gave you money?

    I think you would answer NO.

    Then why would in matter if you received $15,000 or $30,000? It is the same.

    And council members can be bought, not with political contributions, but by vacations, giving your family a job, trips, and other methods that will never see a campaign statement. Also, how do you regulate donated time? Free printing? Free signs? Free internet work?

    If you can’t regulate the free work, then whatever law you pass is useless.

    I think all of the people that have been on the council in the past 10 years have all been ethical and beyond what you are trying to stop.

    What is it that you know?

  29. Joe Baylock

    Hi Myles,

    We’ve been on a nice vacation so I haven’t had a chance to respond to your questions about donation amounts.

    As Cathy’s treasurer, I can tell you that her campaign spent $2,127.78 at Scheherazade’s business (aka the “PIP lady”) and $2,808.90 at another Burlingame printing company. Her campaign received no “free” printing and if it had, it would have been disclosed under “in-kind services” at fair market value.

    Cathy’s campaign spent about $17,000 in the 2005 election and more than 95% of the donations came from within Burlingame. I’m pleased that people are interested in campaign finances. I highly recommend people review the FPPC Form 460’s at City Hall.

  30. Bobby

    Joe:

    You have no idea it the PIP lady gave you a discount.

    Does Cathy feel obligated to the Burlingame citizens who gave her $16,000? Would she feel more obligated if they gave her $32,000?

    Does this mean that over Cathy’s 3 or 4 campaigns that she has received more than $40,000? Does she feel obligated to those citizens who gave her money.

    I think the answer is NO. Cathy is ethical and I think she labors over all decisions and it doesn’t matter if someone gave her money.

    I think that is the case for all of the current and past council members.

    Limiting what someone can raise only benefits the incumbents.

  31. Joe Baylock

    Bobby,

    Thanks for the kind words. Actually I have an excellent idea of whether Cathy got a discount or not because she shops around for competitive prices on all services.

    Since I have been on vacation I may be a bit out of date but as I understand it from the blog the proposal is not to limit how much a candidate can raise, but rather how much a single donor can donate. They are very different things and people should be clear on what is being discussed.

    The question on the table is who is opposed to limiting individual donations and why? I would love to hear from some politicians who are not on the current Council. Even some past councilmembers’ comments would be welcome since I’m sure they are reading this. 🙂

  32. Anonymous

    Just catching up with the blog. I have never received any free printing from any printer. Please check my 460’s for verification.

Leave a Reply

RECENT COMMENTS

RECENT POSTS

CATEGORIES

ABOUT THE VOICE

The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026

Discover more from The Burlingame Voice

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading