OPINION: Public financing still the best way to run city elections

Mayoral candidates like Alex Uballez, Darren White and Louie Sanchez are discovering that qualifying for $750,000 in taxpayer dollars to run a publicly funded campaign is not an easy task. But rather than blaming the system — or the incumbent — they should look to themselves.

I’ve been a supporter of public financing since 1998, when then Sen. Richard Romero and I introduced the first public financing bill into the New Mexico Legislature. Eventually our efforts bore fruit with public financing for the Public Regulation Commission, state courts and then district courts. Now both Republicans and Democrats use the system, which was designed to make sure that only serious candidates, who can demonstrate significant public support, can qualify for the stipend from the state.

In 2005, I worked hard, along with then-Albuquerque City Councilors Martin Heinrich and Eric Griego to pass the Open and Ethical Campaign code, which was adopted at the ballot box by 69% of Albuquerque voters.

Since then, Albuquerque’s system has been refined. The public stipend has been increased to keep up with inflation. Contributions and signatures are now audited in the wake of an attempt by one 2021 candidate to manipulate the system. It is easier — not harder — to collect the small contributions required since it can now all be done online through the city clerk’s website.

But the basics remain — candidates who are willing to cap what they spend on their campaign and who qualify by collecting signatures and $5 contributions can receive a limited amount of funds from the city for their campaigns. The original rationale also remains — public financing allows more candidates who may not be wealthy or well-connected to run, and it frees candidates from the need to raise large private contributions and instead, allows them to focus on the voters themselves. Under this system they must put down the phone to big contributors and pick up the clipboard in search of everyday voters.

This rationale has been accepted by mayoral candidates in city elections dating back to 2009, when Republican Richard Berry was elected using the new system. The present mayor, Tim Keller, used the system in 2017 when he first ran for an open seat, without the incumbency advantage that his current opponents now decry. Then Keller used house parties and door-to door collection efforts, as he is now doing. The person-to-person method is much harder than soliciting contributions via the internet, as his main opponents are doing. Approximately 42% of Keller’s contributions have come this way; over 90% of White and Uballez’s contributions have been online. This personal effort engages the pubic and builds grassroots support for emerging leaders.

Nevertheless, any system requires periodic reform. In 2019 voters approved an increase in the public stipend; another reform — “Democracy Dollars” — which would have given voters vouchers to spend on candidates of their choice, was turned down. Ironically, Keller, whom opponents blame for their own failures, supported these and other reforms to make our system more responsive to voters.

Should the number of contributions or the timeframe to collect them be altered, as Uballez suggests? Possibly. But a $750,000 taxpayer-funded stipend should not be accessed by those who cannot demonstrate that they are serious candidates. That would undermine public financing, which, warts and all, is still the best way to give influence back to voters and take it out of the hands of special interest.