Campaign limits now in place for Springfield municipal elections

Springfield now has a campaign finance reform ordinance, following a unanimous City Council vote last night.

Under the measure, which was given its second reading and vote during the meeting, the contribution limit from one donor for a candidate in a city election is $2,825.

The meeting included a second public hearing on the measure, required because of changes to the bill presented at the April 20 meeting.

The bill was a substitute ordinance that council passed, rather than the one brought forward to council by the body’s Plans and Policies Committee. The chief revision offered by Mayor Jeff Schrag in the substitute bill was to assign finance oversight to an existing body, the Citizens’ Tax Oversight Committee, rather than establishing a nine-member city ethics commission, as recommended by the committee.

The committee worked on the legislation for roughly 10 months, whereas Schrag introduced his revision just before the April 20 meeting, according to past Springfield Business Journal reporting.

While the committee version would have addressed a failure to report contributions, Schrag’s version leaves that up to the Missouri Ethics Commission, which is not an active commission due to a sustained lack of a quorum, as Councilmember Monica Horton pointed out, according topast SBJ reporting.

The revised ordinance also will not allow acceptance of complaints by the Citizens’ Tax Oversight Committee within 15 days before an election, in keeping with MEC rules. This is referred to in the council bill as “15-day pre-election silence.” Additionally, the measure sets up a 180-day time frame for any complaint to be investigated and a ruling to be offered; past that time, the complaint is dismissed.

Of the six people who participated in the public hearing on the bill, all supported the principle of campaign finance reform, but some expressed reservations about the revisions.One of these, Daniel Meadows, outlined several points that he said made him uneasy.

“I do not like the addition that if a complaint is not made within 180 days, it can be dismissed,” he said.

He also brought up a process concern.

He said his confidence in the measure was diminished by the quick substitution of the amendment to the full council, bypassing the council committee that had worked on it.

“It felt rushed, dismissive of the Plans and (Policies) Committee’s work and dismissive of standard process,” Meadows said.

He added that he favors review by a local ethics committee rather than by a state committee that does not appear to have enough members to vote or to oversee ethics complaints.

“I do support this amendment as a starting point,” he said. “Passing this amendment is responsive – responsive to citizens, good governing. It’s a good approach.”

Councilmember Brandon Jenson offered his reserved support for the bill.

“Although the introduction of the substitute bill did result in a fundamentally weaker policy and a reduced gain in trust that I had hoped this bill would achieve with our community, I still believe that this bill is better than no bill,” he said.

He added that the bill should be a first step for council and not just a pat on the back.

Councilmember Craig Hosmer said council has been trying to get campaign finance reform enacted for six years.

“I do think that the process did sort of undermine the transparency, and I think that the mayor would probably agree that having a substitute two hours before a hearing is not ideal,” he said.

When a bill has been considered for 10 months, the substitution process should start much earlier, Hosmer argued.

“That is one of the things that makes people distrust government – when they see things happen quickly, when they see things happen that they don’t even know what the amendment was,” he said.

Hosmer added the amendment was not particularly bad, but the process undermines what council is trying to do to achieve transparency and to regain the trust of voters in the city.

“I think that we can have all the conversations that we want to have with neighborhoods, but if we don’t act, and our actions don’t back up those conversations, I don’t think it’s very effective,” he said.

Schrag said he will be interested to see the impact of the legislation a year from now in the first municipal election following the measure’s passage.

“It is sincerely my hope that we see a notable increase in voter turnout,” he said.