Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda Del Mar Communications Center 240 Tenth Street, Del Mar, California
January 5, 2015 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA WAS DISTRIBUTED (“Red Dots”) ACROSS THE AISLE
The Growing Trans-Partisan Opposition to Citizens United
More than 100 Republican Officials on Record in Support of A Constitutional Amendment to Reclaim Our Democracy
REPORT COMPILED BY
Free Speech For People September 2014
1 January 5, 2015 Item 06 Across America, a growing transpartisan movement is calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decisiondecision inin CitizensCitizens United v.v. FECFEC andand toto reclaimreclaim ourour democracy.democracy.
Page 2 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 2 January 5, 2015 Item 06 Introduction
In just four years since Citizens United, 16 states, more than 200 Members of Congress, and more than 550 cities and towns have called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling. And, on Monday, September 8, 2014, the United States Senate will hold an historic vote on the Democracy For All Amendment (S.J. Res. 19), which would allow for overall campaign spending limits and would end the big money dominance of our elections.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution sets an appropriately high bar for the amendment process. To be enacted, a constitutional amendment must be "rst approved by 2/3 of each chamber of Congress and then rati"ed by 3/4 of the states.
Given these high hurdles, transpartisan support is likely to be essential.
Polling has long indicated robust popular support for an amendment, across party lines. For example, a 2010/2011 Peter Hart poll found that 79% of Americans, including 68% of Republicans, 82% of independents, and 87% of Democrats "support a Constitutional amendment that would overturn the Citizens United decision and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people". Further, a 2012 Associated Press poll found that 83% of Americans, including 81% of Republicans, 78% of independents, and 85% of Democrats believe "there should be limits on the amount of money corporations, unions, and other organizations can contribute to outside organizations trying to in#uence campaigns for president, Senate, and U.S. House." And new polling numbers from Every Voice show that 73% of voters in a dozen Senate battleground states that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney won in 2012 support an amendment to overturn Citizens United.
e best poll, of course, is an actual vote of the people, such as the statewide votes held in November 2012 in Colorado and Montana on ballot questions calling for a constitutional amendment. Both votes demonstrated similarly strong support: 74% of Coloradans approved Amendment 65; Montanans approved Initiative 166, also by 74%, while simultaneously backing Mitt Romney for President by a margin of more than 10 points.
Many prominent Republican officials have stepped forward to lead the way to enacting an amendment. Many more have criticized the Citizens United decision publicly, oen in stinging terms.
Free Speech For People is pleased to present this compilation of more than 100 such Republican leaders, including both current and former, both federal and state, and both elected and appointed public officials.
Page 3 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 3 January 5, 2015 Item 06 This compilation is comprised of:
137 REPUBLICANS who have called for an amendment to overturn Citizens United;
9 REPUBLICANS who have criticized Citizens United for its claim that corporations have constitutional rights; and:
13 MORE REPUBLICANS who have criticized Citizens United in more general terms.
The total to date is 159 REPUBLICAN officials, prominent at the federal or state level, who oppose Citizens United.
We are also appending quotes from three especially prominent Republicans whose criticism of the emerging problems of unchecked corporate power and corporate participation in politics pre-dated Citizens United.
Emphasis in bold throughout this document is added.
Page 4 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 4 January 5, 2015 Item 06 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Republicans Calling for a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United 6
Republicans Critical of Citizens United on the Matter of Corporate Constitutional Rights 17
Republicans Critical of Citizens United Generally 22
Appendix 27
About Free Speech For People 29
Page 5 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 5 January 5, 2015 Item 06 Republicans Calling for a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United
1. Walter Jones, U.S. Representative, 3rd district of North Carolina (1995-present)
Co-sponsored H.J. Res. 21 (in the 113th Congress) and H.J. Res. 88 (in the 112th Congress), identical bills to amend the U.S. Constitution to make it clear that corporations do not have constitutional rights, as if they were people: https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house- joint-resolution/21/cosponsors and http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:hj88:
2. David Stockman, Director, U.S. Office of Management and Budget under President Reagan (1981-1985)
On “Moyers & Company”, March 9th, 2012: http://billmoyers.com/segment/david-stockman-on- crony-capitalism/ at 31:55
"Now we have an entitled class in this country that is far worse than, remember the "welfare queens" that Ronald Reagan used to talk about? We now have an entitled class of Wall St. "nanciers and corporate CEOs who believe the government is there to do... whatever it takes to keep the game going and their stock price moving upward."...
"How do we solve it? I think we can only solve it by... a Constitutional Amendment, so I don't say this lightly, but I think we have to eliminate all contributions above $100.- and get corporations out of politics entirely. Ban corporations from campaign contributions or attempting to in"uence elections. Now I know that runs into current "free speech", so the only way around it is a Constitutional Amendment to cleanse our political system on a one-time basis from this enormously corrupting in#uence that has built up. And I think nothing is really going to change until we get money out of politics and do some radical things to change the way elections are "nanced and the way the process is in#uenced by organized money."
3. Charles "Buddy" Roemer, former Governor of Louisiana (1988-1992)
Testimony at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, on "Taking Back Our Democracy: Responding to Citizens United and the Rise of Super PACs," July 24th, 2012: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg86915/html/CHRG-112shrg86915.htm
"...it is my belief that Washington DC is not just broken. It is bought, rented, leased, owned by the money givers. Special interests, the bundlers, PACs, Super PACs, lobbyists, the Wall Street bankers, the pharmaceuticals, the corporate giants, the insurance companies, organized labor, the GSE’s like Fannie and Freddie, energy companies, on and on and on and on. And this is not about one party versus the other, or about one person or another. It is about systemic and institutional corruption where the size of your check rather than the strength of your need or idea determine your place in line..."
Page 6 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 6 January 5, 2015 Item 06 "I recommend that we work simultaneously on statutory and constitutional efforts to increase the public discourse while revealing the special interests without limiting the right to free speech."
"An appropriate Constitutional Amendment could be required as we work through this complex problem,... I see the need to follow a two-initiative approach at the same time: statutorily and constitutionally. We cannot wait as a nation, so we must have a two- pronged effort from the beginning: an immediate correction maximizing the chance for real people to get re-involved and re-move the gridlock addiction fostered by the special interests who dominate fundraising (my seven point plan for example), while constitutional efforts are coordinated."
4. John Bohlinger, former Lieutenant Governor of Montana (2005-2013)
In a video supporting ElectionsAreForUs.org, a website calling for a constitutional amendment: http://youtu.be/ditFMj2EhUQ
“I'm John Bohlinger, Montana's Lieutenant Governor, and I'm a Republican. Now, Republicans and Democrats don't always agree on policy matters, but there's one thing we do agree on, and that is: corporate money should not in#uence the outcome of an election.”
At a press conference on May 3rd, 2012 endorsing Montana’s ballot initiative I-166, calling for a constitutional amendment: http://youtu.be/opemPbg2gkw
"is is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, and corporations are not people."
At the same press conference: http://youtu.be/ZWSH07ksqbo
"e Corrupt Practices Act: that was adopted by the people of Montana in 1912, putting some limits and boundaries on the in#uence of money on the outcome of elections. is is a question that I think goes beyond partisan matters of politics. It's not a question of, well, this is a Republican issue or this is a Democrat issue. is is an issue about fair outcomes of elections."
5. Verner Bertelsen, former Secretary of State, Montana (1988-1989)
At the same press conference on May 3rd, 2012 endorsing Montana’s ballot initiative I-166, calling for a constitutional amendment: http://youtu.be/opemPbg2gkw
"Without an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, clarifying that corporations are not people, and that money is not speech, policies aimed at cleaning up elections and reducing the undue in#uence of money in politics will remain under a threat."
In an opinion piece in the Billings Gazette, “Stand against unlimited campaign spending, vote for I-166”, October 15th, 2012: http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/guest/guest-opinion-stand-
Page 7 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 7 January 5, 2015 Item 06 against-unlimited-campaign-spending-vote-for-i/ article_8a1755d3-6539-5e37-92a6-3183d8b6eba9.html
“On your ballot, you’ll see state initiative I-166. You should vote FOR it. A vote FOR I-166 shows that you still believe it’s people, not corporations, who should call the shots in our political system.
Amend U.S. Constitution
I-166 calls on our leaders to amend the U.S. Constitution and re-institute limits on political spending. It would assert that corporations aren’t people, they shouldn’t be granted the same rights as people, and they certainly shouldn’t be allowed to buy elections.
I-166 is a chance to "ght back against the bad Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court and more recent decisions that threaten to undo Montana’s century-old laws against political corruption. It’s an initiative supported strongly by Montana Republicans and Democrats alike.
I am a lifelong Republican and I served as Montana secretary of state from 1988 to 1989...
Corporations aren’t people and money isn’t speech. CEOs of corporations may choose to personally contribute to political campaigns, but they shouldn’t be allowed to use shareholders’ money to do so.”
6. Gary Stevens, President of the State Senate (2009-2012), and State Senator, Alaska (2003-present) and: 7. Kevin Meyer, State Senator, Alaska (2009-present)
Voted “Yea” on 3/21/12 to pass bill # SJR 13: http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_jrn_page.asp?session=27&bill=SJR13&jrn=1904&hse=S
8. Catherine Cloutier, State Senator, Delaware (2000-present)
Joined a majority of state legislators in signing a letter to Congress calling for an amendment: http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/"les/DE-ltr-June-10-2013-3Rs- highlighted.PDF 9. Chris Steineger, State Senator, Kansas (1997-2013)
Co-sponsored bill # SCR 1617: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/scr1617_00_0000.pdf
10. Karen McConnaughay, State Senator, Illinois (2013-present)
Co-sponsored bill # SJR 27: http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp? DocNum=27&GAID=12&GA=98&DocTypeID=SJR&LegID=75827&SessionID=85
Voted with the majority to pass SJR 27 on May 14th, 2013:
Page 8 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 8 January 5, 2015 Item 06 http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/"les/IL%20Sen%20votes%20for%20SJR %2027%205-14-13.pdf Senator McConnaughay is also quoted in a press report describing her reasons for supporting the bill: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130417/news/704179644/ State Sen. Karen McConnaughay, a St. Charles Republican, spoke against the in#uence of special interest groups in front of a crowd of around 60 activists from around the state. "at the rights to in#uence our political process by big business, by corporations and wealthy individuals, our forefathers never intended for that to trump the rights of us as individuals," McConnaughay said. 11. Pamela J. Althoff, State Senator, Illinois (2003-present)
Co-sponsored bill # SJR 27: http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp? DocNum=27&GAID=12&GA=98&DocTypeID=SJR&LegID=75827&SessionID=85
Voted with the majority to pass SJR 27 on May 14th, 2013: http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/"les/IL%20Sen%20votes%20for%20SJR %2027%205-14-13.pdf
12. David Burns, State Senator, Maine (2012-present), and: 13. Ronald F. Collins, State Senator, Maine (2010-present),
Cosponsored SP 548: http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/sponsors.asp? ID=280048833
14. Roger Katz, State Senator, Maine (2010-present), 15. Brian Langley, State Senator, Maine (2010-present), 16. Tom Saviello, State Senator, Maine (2010-present), and: 17. Edward Youngblood, State Senator, Maine (2012-present)
Cosponsored SP 548: http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/sponsors.asp? ID=280048833
Senators Katz, Langley, Saviello, and Youngblood also voted with the majority to pass SP 548: http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/rollcall.asp? ID=280048833&chamber=Senate&serialnumber=57
In addition, Senator Youngblood appeared at a rally in support of this resolution, on January 22nd, 2013, as reported in a Bangor Daily News story: http://bangordailynews.com/2013/01/22/politics/ maine-lawmakers-join-effort-to-amend-constitution-to-allow-campaign-funding-limits/
Republican state Sen. Edward Youngblood of Brewer and Democratic state Sen. Geoff Gratwick of Bangor joined forces Tuesday to endorse a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that equates campaign donations to free speech protected by the First Amendment...
Page 9 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 9 January 5, 2015 Item 06 ...Youngblood supports a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and has submitted legislation... Youngblood said Tuesday that he expects it will draw Democrats, Republicans and independents as co-sponsors.
“ere has to be a way to secure First Amendment rights to speech and still control the amount of dollars spent on campaigns,” he said. “It should be plain to everyone aer the election we’ve just had, which broke records for spending, that the system isn’t getting better.”
18. Rodney Whittemore, State Senator, Maine (2010-present)
Voted with the majority to pass SP 548: http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/rollcall.asp? ID=280048833&chamber=Senate&serialnumber=57
19. Sean Nienow, State Senator, Minnesota (2011-present)
Voted with the majority to pass bill # SF 17: http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/"les/MN_Sen_Nienow_May_2013.pdf or http:// www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/journals/2013-2014/20130502048.pdf
20. Ron Arthun, State Senator, Montana (2011-present), 21. Edward Buttrey, State Senator, Montana (2011-present), 22. Jennifer Fielder, State Senator, Montana (2013-present), 23. Llew Jones, State Senator, Montana (2011-present), 24. Alan Olson, State Senator, Montana (2011-present), 25. Scott Sales, State Senator, Montana (2013-present), 26. Bruce Tutvedt, State Senator, Montana (2009-present), and: 27. Chas Vincent, State Senator, Montana (2011-present)
Voted “Yea” on bill # SJ 19: http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0211W$BLAC.VoteTabulation? P_VOTE_SEQ=S765&P_SESS=20131 Bill text is on record at: http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2013/senjoint/SJ0019_2.pdf
28. Kevin Mullin, State Senator, Vermont (2003-present), 29. Vincent Illuzzi, State Senator, Vermont (1981-2013), 30. Diane B. Snelling, State Senator, Vermont (2002-present), 31. Richard Westman, State Senator, Vermont (2011-present), and: 32. William T. Doyle, State Senator, Vermont (1969-present)
Voted in support of bill # JRS 11: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/rcdetail.cfm?Session=2012&RollCallID=466
33. Bob Lynn, Chair, Committee on State Affairs, and State Representative, Alaska (2003-present) and: 34. Doug Isaacson, State Representative, Alaska (2013-present)
Described in a press report as supporting bill # HJR 8: http://radiokenai.net/campaign-reform- being-discussed-in-juneau/
Page 10 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 10 January 5, 2015 Item 06 e House State Affairs Committee held a hearing yesterday on House Joint Resolution 8, sponsored by Anchorage Representative Les Gara.
HJR8 asks Congress to amend the U.S. constitution to prohibit corporations and unions from unlimited spending on political campaigns.
Committee chair, Bob Lynn of Anchorage, said that he supports the resolution since companies with a foreign board of directors can in#uence domestic politics; North Pole Representative Doug Issacson also backed the resolution.
Bill text is on record at: http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill_text.asp? hsid=HJR008A&session=28
35. Donald Blakey, State Representative, Delaware (2006-present), and: 36. Michael Ramone, State Representative, Delaware (2008-present) Joined a majority of state legislators in signing a letter to Congress calling for an amendment: http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/"les/DE-ltr-June-10-2013-3Rs-highlighted.PDF
37. Josh Harms, State Representative, Illinois (2012-present), 38. David Harris, State Representative, Illinois (2010-present), 39. Michael McAuliffe, State Representative, Illinois (1996-present), 40. Sandra Pihos, State Representative, Illinois (2002-present), 41. Robert Pritchard, State Representative, Illinois (2003-present), 42. Pam Roth, State Representative, Illinois (2011-present), 43. Jim Sacia, State Representative, Illinois (2002-present), 44. Michael Tryon, State Representative, Illinois (2004-present), and 45. Barbara Wheeler, State Representative, Illinois (2012-present)
Voted with the majority of State Representatives to pass bill # SJR 27: http:// freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/"les/IL%20House%20Vote.pdf or http://www.ilga.gov/ legislation/votehistory/98/senate/09800SJ0027_05142013_049000D.pdf
46. Dennis Keschl, State Representative, Maine (2010-present)
Co-sponsored SP 548: http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/sponsors.asp? ID=280048833
…and also voted with the majority of State Representatives to pass it: http:// www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/rollcall.asp? ID=280048833&chamber=House&serialnumber=60
Representative Keschl was also quoted in a Bangor Daily News Story describing his reasons for supporting SP 548: http://bangordailynews.com/2013/04/30/politics/senate-backs-resolutions- supporting-campaign-"nance-immigration-reforms/
Page 11 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 11 January 5, 2015 Item 06 In a House #oor speech, Rep. Dennis Keschl, R-Belgrade, said, “Unions, corporations and other wealthy special interest groups should not be able to use their money to drown out the voices of the people.”
47. Alexander Willette, Assistant Republican Leader and State Representative, Maine (2010-Present), 48. Bernard Ayotte, State Representative, Maine (2006-present), 49. Michael Beaulieu, State Representative, Maine (2006-present), 50. Tyler Clark, State Representative, Maine (2008-present), 51. David Cotta, State Representative, Maine (2006-present), 52. Larry Dunphy, State Representative, Maine (2010-present), 53. Brian Duprey, State Representative, Maine (2012-present), 54. James Gillway, State Representative, Maine (2010-present), 55. Lance Harvell, State Representative, Maine (2009-present), 56. Jon Kinney, State Representative, Maine (2012-present), 57. Gary Knight, State Representative, Maine (2006-present), 58. Sharri MacDonald, State Representative, Maine (2012-present), 59. Joyce Maker, State Representative, Maine (2010-present), 60. Richard Malaby, State Representative, Maine (2010-present), 61. Don Marean, State Representative, Maine (2012-present), 62. Matt Pouliot, State Representative, Maine (2012-present), 63. Roger Reed, State Representative, Maine (2012-present), 64. Beth Turner, State Representative, Maine (2011-present), 65. Tom Tyler, State Representative, Maine (2012-present), 66. Amy Volk, State Representative, Maine (2010-present), 67. Windol Weaver, State Representative, Maine (2006-present), 68. Corey Wilson, State Representative, Maine (2012-present), 69. Ellen Winchenbach, State Representative, Maine (2012-present), and: 70. Steve Wood, State Representative, Maine (2010-present)
Voted with the majority of State Representatives to pass SP 548: http://www.mainelegislature.org/ LawMakerWeb/rollcall.asp?ID=280048833&chamber=House&serialnumber=60
71. Ron George, State Delegate, Maryland (2007-present)
Joined a majority of state legislators in signing a letter to Congress calling for an amendment: http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/"les/MDGeneralAssembly-5pages-RonGeorge- highlight.pdf
72. Liz Bangerter, State Representative, Montana (2011-present)
Voted in favor of bills # HJ 10 (in 2011) and # HJ 6 (in 2013): http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/ LAW0211W$BLAC.VoteTabulation?P_VOTE_SEQ=H695&P_SESS=20111
And:
http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0211W$BLAC.VoteTabulation? P_VOTE_SEQ=H798&P_SESS=20131
73. Lila Walter Evans, State Representative, Montana (2011-2013),
Page 12 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 12 January 5, 2015 Item 06 74. Daniel Salomon, State Representative, Montana (2011-present), and: 75. Bob Wagner, State Representative, Montana (2009-2013)
Voted in favor of bill # HJ 10: http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0211W$BLAC.VoteTabulation? P_VOTE_SEQ=H695&P_SESS=20111
76. Christy Clark, State Representative, Montana (2011-present), 77. Steve Gibson, State Representative, Montana (2011-present), 78. Sarah Laszloffy, State Representative, Montana (2013-present), 79. Dennis Lenz, State Representative, Montana (2013-present), 80. Jesse O'Hara, State Representative, Montana (2007-present), 81. Nicholas Schwaderer, State Representative, Montana (2013-present), 82. Ray Shaw, State Representative, Montana (2013-present), 83. Kirk Wagoner, State Representative, Montana (2013-present), and: 84. Jeffrey Welborn, State Representative, Montana (2009-present),
Voted in favor of bill # HJ 6: http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0211W$BLAC.VoteTabulation? P_VOTE_SEQ=H798&P_SESS=20131
85. David Bickford, State Representative, New Hampshire (1996-2006, 2008-2010, 2012-present), 86. Timothy Comerford, State Representative, New Hampshire (2008-present), 87. Carolyn Gargasz, State Representative, New Hampshire (2000-present), 88. James Grenier, State Representative, New Hampshire (2012-present), 89. Daniel Itse, State Representative, New Hampshire (2000-present), 90. David Kidder, State Representative, New Hampshire (2004-present), and:
Voted with the majority on May 15, 2014 to pass bill # SB307: http://legiscan.com/NH/rollcall/SB307/id/364694
And:
Voted with the majority on March 20th, 2013 to pass bill # HCR 2: https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/7003/images/HCR%202%20Final%20RollCall%203-20-13%20w %2010%20R%20yeas.pdf or http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/Roll_calls/ billstatus_rcdetails.aspx? vs=79&sy=2013&lb=H&eb=HCR0002&sortoption=billnumber&txtsessionyear=2013&txtbillnum ber=HCR2&ddlsponsors=&lsr=290
91. James Belanger, State Representative, New Hampshire (2010-present), 92. Ronald Belanger, State Representative, New Hampshire (1992-present), 93. Regina Birdsell, State Representative, New Hampshire (2010-present), 94. Gene Charron, State Representative, New Hampshire (2004-present), 95. Lars Christiansen, State Representative, New Hampshire (1996-present) 96. Gary Daniels, State Representative, New Hampshire (1996-2000, 2006-present) 97. Ralph Doolan, State Representative, New Hampshire (2012-present) 98. Robert Elliot, State Representative, New Hampshire (2006-present) 99. Beverly Ferrante, State Representative, New Hampshire (2008-present) 100. Donald Flanders, State Representative, New Hampshire (2000-present)
Page 13 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 13 January 5, 2015 Item 06 101. Jack Hayes, State Representative, New Hampshire (2012-present) 102. Laura Jones, State Representative, New Hampshire (2010-present) 103. Priscilla Lockwood, State Representative, New Hampshire (1998-present) 104. Robert Luther, State Representative, New Hampshire (2010-present) 105. David Murotake, State Representative, New Hampshire (2012-present) 106. Robert Nigrello, State Representative, New Hampshire (2012-present) 107. Elisabeth Sanders, State Representative, New Hampshire (2004-present) 108. John Sedensky, State Representative, New Hampshire (2008-present) 109. Steven Smith, State Representative, New Hampshire (2010-present) 110. Kevin St. James, State Representative, New Hampshire (2012-present) 111. Jordan Ulery, State Representative, New Hampshire (2004-present) 112. Karen Umberger, State Representative, New Hampshire (2008-present) 113. Kenneth Weyler, State Representative, New Hampshire (1990-2008, 2010-present)
Voted with the majority on May 15, 2014 to pass bill # SB307: http://legiscan.com/NH/rollcall/SB307/id/364694
114. Susan Emerson, State Representative, New Hampshire (2000-2002, 2004-present), 115. Richard Gordon, State Representative, New Hampshire (2012-present), 116. Stephen Holmes, State Representative, New Hampshire (2012-present), 117. Herbert Richardson, State Representative, New Hampshire (2002-2006, 2008-present)
Voted with the majority on March 20th, 2013 to pass bill # HCR 2: https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/7003/images/HCR%202%20Final%20RollCall %203-20-13%20w%2010%20R%20yeas.pdf or http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/ Roll_calls/billstatus_rcdetails.aspx? vs=79&sy=2013&lb=H&eb=HCR0002&sortoption=billnumber&txtsessionyear=2013&txtbillnumb er=HCR2&ddlsponsors=&lsr=290
118. Jack Ciattarelli, State Assembly Member, New Jersey (2011-present)
Voted with the majority on October 18th, 2012 to pass bill # AR 86: https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/7003/images/NJ%20AR86%20roll%20call%2010-18-12.pdf; Roll call also available via navigation under the following general link: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/ BillView.asp
119. Don Tripp, State Representative, New Mexico (1999-present)
Voted with the majority on January 31st, 2012 to pass bill # HM 4: http://www.nmlegis.gov/ Sessions/12%20regular/votes/HM004HVOTE.pdf
120. Michael Montesano, State Assembly Member, New York (2010-present)
Joined a majority of State Assembly Members in signing a June 2014 letter to Congress calling for an amendment: http://www.ny4democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/AssemblyLetter.pdf
And:
Page 14 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 14 January 5, 2015 Item 06 Co-sponsored bill # K 1016: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_#d=%0D %0A&bn=K1016&term=2011&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y
121. Clifford Crouch, State Assembly Member, New York (1995-present) 122. Chad Lupinacci, State Assembly Member, New York (2013-present) 123. David McDonough, State Assembly Member, New York (2002-present)
Joined a majority of State Assembly Members in signing a June 2014 letter to Congress calling for an amendment: http://www.ny4democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/AssemblyLetter.pdf
124. Dan Moul, State Representative, Pennsylvania (2007-present), 125. Mark Mustio, State Representative, Pennsylvania (2003-present), and: 126. RoseMarie Swanger, State Representative, Pennsylvania (2007-present)
Co-sponsored bill # HR 556: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/ btCheck.cfmtxtType=HTM&sessYr=2011&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=R&billNbr=0556&p n=3029
127. Bob Faehn, former State House Majority Leader and former State Representative, South Dakota (2005-2011)
Co-sponsored bill # HCR 1018: http://legis.sd.gov/Legislative_Session/Bills/Bill.aspx? Bill=HCR1018&Session=2010
128. Mark Kirkeby, former State Representative, South Dakota (2007-2012; State Senator, 2013-present)
Voted for bill # HCR 1018: http://legis.sd.gov/Legislative_Session/Bills/RollCall.aspx? Vote=7679&Session=2010
129. Dennis Devereux, State Representative, Vermont (2007-present), 130. Adam Howard, State Representative, Vermont (2009-2013), 131. Patti Komline, State Representative, Vermont (2005-present), 132. Oliver Olsen, State Representative, Vermont (2010-2013), and: 133. Kurt Wright, State Representative, Vermont (2001-present)
Voted with the majority to pass bill # JRS 11: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/ rcdetail.cfm?Session=2012&RollCallID=481
134. Mike Hope, State Representative, Washington State (2009-present)
Co-sponsored bill # HJM 4001: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx? bill=4001&year=2013
135. Jan Angel, State Representative, Washington State (2009-present)
Voted for bill # HJM 4001: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=4001&
Page 15 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 15 January 5, 2015 Item 06 136. John Ellem, State Delegate, West Virginia (2000-present)
Co-sponsored bill # HR 8 in 2012: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/ 2012_SESSIONS/RS/Bills/hr8%20intr.htm
Delegate Ellem is also quoted in a press report describing his reasons for supporting bill # HR 9, in 2013: http://www.statejournal.com/story/21820476/wv-house-resolution-seeks-to-overturn- citizens-united Delegate John Ellem, R-Wood, dusted off the history books and pointed out the Dutch East India Company, the "rst multi-national corporation, was created to do big business and had powers to declare war and to try, imprison and execute people. But, Ellem said, times have changed. "It was a tool," he said. "Corporations existed before the 1st Amendment. ey existed before our constitution. Since a corporation is a tool for commerce, I strongly believe being a tool we created, we have the power, we as the legislative body, and the Supreme Court has chimed in on it, but we have the right to impose restrictions." e text of HR 9 is on record at: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2013_SESSIONS/ RS/Bills/hr9%20intr.htm
137. Bill Hamilton, State Delegate, West Virginia (2003-present)
Co-sponsored bill # HR 8: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2012_SESSIONS/RS/ Bills/hr8%20intr.htm
Page 16 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 16 January 5, 2015 Item 06 Republicans Critical of Citizens United on the Matter of Corporate Constitutional Rights
1. John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona (1987-present), former Republican nominee for President (2008)
MSNBC, e Daily Rundown, August 27, 2014 http://www.msnbc.com/the-daily-rundown/watch/meet-the-presss--1-guest-surprises-chuck- todd-322437187546 at 8:50
“I believe that history will show that the Citizens United decision by the United States Supreme Court was one of the worst in history saying that corporations are people and money is speech -- a violation of everything that I believe, certainly in the 20th century what we believed as far as "nancing of elections is concerned.”
PBS NewsHour, June 14th, 2012: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june12/mccain_06-14.html at 9:56
“Yes. at is a great deal of money. And, again, we need a level playing "eld and we need to go back to the realization that Teddy Roosevelt had that we have to have a limit on the #ow of money, and that corporations are not people.”
“at's why we have different laws that govern corporations than govern individual citizens. And so to say that corporations are people, again, "ies in the face of all the traditional Supreme Court decisions that we have made -- that have been made in the past.”
Reuters, March 28th, 2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNZU-vlfAs0
“What the Supreme Court did is a combination of arrogance, naivete and stupidity the likes of which I have never seen. Russ Feingold and I went over to watch the arguments before the United States Supreme Court. I couldn’t believe how little these justices understood about the realities of political campaigns.... ey were incredibly naive. Since when is a corporation a person?... What it has done is it has unleashed a #ood of money... “
“And by the way you know Sheldon [Adelson], the Las Vegas casino owner, who owns a casino also, casinos in Macau, he’s contributing I think over $20 million right now, so foreign money already is into American political campaigning, in a roundabout way, but it is.”
“I promise you this. I promise you there will be huge scandals, because there’s too much money washing around, too much of it is you don’t know who contributed, and there’s too much corruption associated with that kind of money. ere will be major scandals.”
Page 17 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 17 January 5, 2015 Item 06 “We will go out there again, we’ll "ght again, and we’ll continue to "ght, because it’s not fair to the American people. is system is not fair to the American people... I grieve right now for the average citizen, for the average voter.”
“Meet the Press”, January 29th, 2012: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032608/vp/46181493#46181493 at 9:40
“I condemn them [SuperPACs] on all sides and I condemn the United States Supreme Court for their naiveté in the Citizens vs. United [sic], a decision which is an outrage.”
2. Rob McKenna, Attorney General of Washington State (2005-2013), 3. Mark Shurtleff, Attorney General of Utah (2001-2013), and 4. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General of Idaho (2003-present)
In an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, "led by twenty-two state Attorneys General including these three Republicans: http://www.ag.ny.gov/sites/default/"les/press-releases/2012/ATPvBullock-States-Brief- Supporting-Montana.pdf
“In particular, the amici States believe that the Court should reexamine the assertion in Citizens United that independent expenditures, no matter their size or circumstances, rarely cause corruption or the appearance of corruption of federal officeholders, as well as the holding that the federal law at issue in that case could not be supported, in whole or in part, by government interests in preventing distortion of political campaigns and protecting shareholders from the use of corporate funds for political communications they do not support.”
“e States have regulated corporate participation in politics for over a century.”
“e States’ legislative responses [to the Citizens United decision], however, evidence their continuing interest in ensuring that corporate expenditures do not threaten the integrity of their democratic processes.”
“e States have a compelling interest in preventing domination of state and local elections by nonresident corporate interests.”
“...the anti-corruption interest is not the only cognizable government interest that can support restrictions on campaign expenditures: a polity also has a compelling interest in regulating electoral in#uence by nonresidents.”
“And nonresident corporations, due to their large aggregations of wealth and discrete economic interests, present the greatest risk of domination or distortion of state and local elections by nonresidents.”
5. Jim Leach, former Chair, National Endowment for the Humanities (2009-2013), and former U.S. Representative, 1st then 2nd district of Iowa (1977-2007)
Page 18 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 18 January 5, 2015 Item 06 In a speech at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in Cambridge, MA on October 7th, 2012, reported in the Boston Globe, “Democracy For Sale”, October 14th, 2012: http://articles.boston.com/ 2012-10-14/opinion/34427397_1_civility-political-process-political-retribution
“Brazenly, in Citizens United, the court employed parallel logic to the syllogism embedded in the most repugnant ruling it ever made, the 1857 Dred Scott decision. To justify slavery, the court in Dred Scott de"ned a class of human beings as private property. To magnify corporate power a century and a half later, it de"ned a class of private property (corporations) as people...
A corporation is an arti%cial creation of the state which in turn is a creation of the people. To vest with constitutionally protected political rights an inanimate entity makes mockery of our individual-rights heritage...
ere is great inequality between corporations, no equality of individual and corporate “personhood,” and no equality of individuals when one with many corporate ties may have more capacity to in#uence decision-making than one with none or just a few...
ere is no escaping the reality that the precept of corporate personhood pushes American politics in an oligarchic direction...
e court’s law-making judgment cannot be challenged by Congress because an activist 5- to-4 majority has presumptuously held that the moneyed speech powers it has granted corporations are protected by the First Amendment...
e effect: Under a free speech guise, the Supreme Court has authorized masked men to use unlimited resources to rob America of its democratic idealism...
e arc of our history that has bent toward justice has suddenly with the Citizens United decision twisted back to that part of our constitutional heritage that was self-evidently unjust. Property considerations have again become accentuated in a key aspect of citizenship, the injustice of which weakens the links between government and the people...
a tertiary effect of corporate giving is that it diminishes citizen respect for the political system...
A citizenry simply cannot be expected to have con"dence in a judicial system in which the standard becomes equal application of unfair laws. Equal justice requires that the law itself be fair...moneyed “speech” must not be allowed to weaken the voices of the people. e Constitution begins “We the people. . .” not “We the corporations. . .””
6. Jon Huntsman, former Governor of Utah (2005-2009), former U.S. Ambassador to China (2009-2011)
Slate, January 6th, 2012: http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/01/06/ occupiers_for_huntsman_part_ii_of_course_corporations_are_not_people_.html Page 19 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 19 January 5, 2015 Item 06 "Of course corporations are not people," joked Huntman [sic]. "Who would say such an outlandish thing!"
KSL.com, August 7th, 2012: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=757&sid=21601347
"e party has become a holding company for super PACs," he said, describing the Citizen's United Supreme Court case, which opened the door to unlimited, secret money in campaigns as disastrous.
Huntsman said he longed for the party of Lincoln, who elevated "the notion of individual liberty," of Roosevelt (Teddy, not Franklin), who stood up to too-large corporations "in the name of fairness and equality" and Eisenhower "who built our infrastructure."
7. Ron Paul, former U.S. Representative, 22nd then 14th district of Texas (1979-1985; 1997-2013)
In an interview while campaigning for the presidency in August, 2011: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=s-xFexgH76g Originally transcribed at RonPaul.com: http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-17/ron-paul-corporations- are-not-people/
Interviewer: “What did you make of Mitt Romney’s statement that corporations are people yesterday?”
Ron Paul: “Well obviously, they are not. People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, and they shouldn’t be a new creature so-to-speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual.”
8. Warren Rudman, late former U.S. Senator from New Hampshire (1980 -1993)
In a column he wrote in the Washington Post, published February 3rd, 2010, "Republicans losing their way on campaign "nance reform": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403624.html
"...laws limiting corporate money in federal elections and requiring strict disclosure of campaign funds... were dealt a serious blow by [the] Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. at such a rash and immoderate ruling could come from a chief justice once committed to respecting precedent, and win praise from leaders of my party, is beyond my comprehension…
Supreme Court opinion notwithstanding, corporations are not de%ned as people under the Constitution, and free speech can hardly be called free when only the rich are heard."
9. Trevor Potter, former Commissioner (1991-1995), Federal Election Commission
In a video interview with Bill Moyers, “Trevor Potter on Fighting Big Money in the 2012 Election”: http://billmoyers.com/segment/trevor-potter-on-"ghting-big-money-in-the-2012-election/ Page 20 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 20 January 5, 2015 Item 06 “...the Citizens United decision,... that I and I think many other people think was a big mistake...
It seems to me that the Supreme Court majority and Citizens United ignored, essentially, a hundred years of American history, going back to date eodore Roosevelt and his "rst clarion call, that big money and Wall Street not dominate the presidential election. And his urging of Congress to limit corporate contributions…
So to say that the right thing to do in a democracy is have a corporation spend money in ways that will give them the most pro"t, never mind what happens to anyone else or the rest of the country. It is, I think, an example of why you don't really want corporations participating directly in elections.
ey have a very narrow interest. Which is supposed to be their shareholders. But we want voters and citizens to have a broader interest. To think about the next generation, to think about the greater good. ere's an interesting quote from the head of Exxon in a new book out on Exxon where he says, "Exxon is not a U.S. corporation, we do not act in the best interest of the United States."
Well, it is a U.S. corporation, but what he meant is, they have shareholders all over the world, they have investments all over the world, and it's not his job to do things that are good for America, it's his job to do things that are good for his international shareholders.”
Featured in a video by e Atlantic, “Stephen Colbert’s Lawyer Explains the Danger of SuperPACs”: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/stephen-colberts-lawyer-explains-the-danger-of- super-pacs/262419/
[Interviewer:] “How radically would you say that the campaign "nance landscape has changed since the Citizens United decision?”
[Potter:] “I think it’s safe to change that today we’re probably at the lowest place I have seen in my legal career.” …
[Interviewer:] “What concerns you about the idea of unlimited corporate donations in politics?”
[Potter:] “I think the fundamental belief here is that citizens, who are, aer all, voters, should be the ones participating in election advocacy because you and I have a whole range of reasons to vote for someone or to give to a candidate. But in theory, in law, in reality, a corporation only has one reason, which is to maximize their pro"ts.”
Page 21 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 21 January 5, 2015 Item 06 Republicans Critical of Citizens United Generally
1. Olympia Snowe, U.S. Senator, Maine (1995-2013)
In an article on Maine Public Broadcasting, November 6th, 2012: http://www.mpbn.net/News/ MPBNNews/tabid/1159/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3762/ItemId/24561/Default.aspx
Outside groups have spent more than $7 million on Maine's U.S. Senate race alone. And Sen. Snowe says the unleashing of their attack ads has been a disservice to the candidates and the voters because they've dampened discussion of real issues. at's why Snowe says she'd endorse a future effort to repeal Citizens United.
"It's ridiculing our process, it's ridiculing, frankly, the common sense, practicality and intelligence of the American people," Snowe says. "ey expect better, should get better, deserve better.” Senator Snowe also shared her views on Citizens United in an interview on the Diane Rehm Show on May 21st, 2013: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-05-21/olympia-snowe-"ghting-common- ground-how-we-can-"x-stalemate-congress, at 35:30 ... I think it matters profoundly, the decision that was issued by the Supreme Court on Citizens United. And as a matter of fact, it was my provision in the campaign "nance law that was challenged in Citizens United. It was based on issue advocacy ads that Senator Jeffords and I had draed to try to combat the in#uence of these ads by outside organizations right before an election. I said they were designed to in#uence the outcome. You know, if you're identifying members of Congress or Senators by name shortly before the election, in this case it was 60 days. So we thought we drew a very bright line. In fact, it was upheld in the "rst challenge before the Supreme Court. ere were three hours of arguments on my provision. It was sustained because at that point, of course, we had Sandra Day O'Connor on the Court. But, regrettably, it wasn't in this case. And then they unraveled, you know, another 100 years of case law and precedent. So I think it matters because it's just more money where they can, you know, "ood the airways with invectives and demonize individuals and positions and viewpoints, even during the course of the legislative session, not just in matter of the campaign, so it becomes perpetual. And 71 percent of the ads that are run are attack ads. So that has a spillover effect into the legislative process. It's undeniable, in many ways. Senator Snowe was also quoted previously in an article on initial reaction to the Citizens United decision, at Examiner.com: http://www.examiner.com/article/congressional-reaction-and-non- reaction-to-supreme-court-ruling-on-mccain-feingold-law Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), for example, was one Republican to publicly declare her unease with the decision. Snowe said she was "deeply troubled" by the ruling. "e effects of the decision will be to undermine existing law, #ood the airwaves with corporate and union advertisements and undercut landmark reforms that I and many others fought to secure to put elections back in the hands of the American people.
Page 22 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 22 January 5, 2015 Item 06 Today's decision was a serious disservice to our country."
2. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator, Alaska (2002-present)
In Washington Post Op-Ed by Senators Murkowski and Ron Wyden (D-OR), published December 27th, 2012, “Our states vouch for transparent campaign "nancing”: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ opinions/a-federal-blueprint-for-transparent-campaign-"nancing/2012/12/27/ b1c6287e-43eb-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html
“Take it from two United States senators from both sides of the aisle who have decades of experience in public life: Campaign-"nance rules have a tremendous impact on the public policy agenda in Congress. Contrary to the popular perception, the prospect of getting — or not getting — a check from an individual or political action committee does not drive the typical decision on Capitol Hill. But decision-making is oen colored by the prospect of facing $5 million in anonymous attacks ads if a member of Congress crosses an economically powerful interest.
is in"ux of unregulated political cash stemming from the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision spawned a particularly vitriolic political cycle. Groups on both sides dumped some $6 billion into tearing down candidates for public office. e anonymity of much of this spending encourages ads that lower the level of political discourse and makes it harder, not easier, for Americans to make informed decisions. Most of all, this spending ensured that those elected in November would carry that pressure for strict and absolute partisanship back to Washington, hobbling our efforts to govern for another two years.
e resulting political gridlock is preventing progress in a number of areas — apparent in the “"scal cliff” negotiations — but most signi"cantly on fundamental campaign-"nance reforms... Along with many Americans, we are uncomfortable with the Citizens United decision. Unlimited corporate and individual spending is corrosive to democracy and undermines the political process...”
3. Newt Gingrich, former Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives (1995-1999), and former U.S. Representative (1979-1999)
In a guest appearance on e Colbert Report, November 13th, 2012: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/episodes/ws071h/november-13--2012---newt-gingrich
Gingrich: "I think super PACs as such are in fact very dangerous in the long run. When you see Mayor Bloomberg put a million seven hundred thousand into a democratic district in California to beat somebody, there's something fundamentally, profoundly wrong about what's happening, and it's happening in both parties and in the long run it's going to be very negative and very destructive of our system."...
Gingrich: "I had one billionaire, a good friend and a person who's deeply passionate about..."
Page 23 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 23 January 5, 2015 Item 06 Colbert: "Great friend to have. Billionaires are some of the best friends to have."
Gingrich: "I'd love to have had ten or 15. Romney had about 26. It turned out 26 billionaires beat one. is was a great revelation to us. So I think Romney..."
Colbert: "at would make a great reality show: Billionaire Fight"
Gingrich: "ere you go. We just had it. It was called the election."
4. Richard Posner, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (1981-present), nominated by President Reagan
Speaking at the University of Chicago Law School on July 12th, 2012, as reported in e Daily Beast in this piece, which also describes Posner as “the most in#uential conservative judge outside the Supreme Court”: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/14/richard-posner-bashes-supreme- court-s-citizens-united-ruling.html
"Our political system is pervasively corrupt due to our Supreme Court taking away campaign-contribution restrictions on the basis of the First Amendment."
“wealthy people essential[ly] bribe legislators” [with campaign contributions]
5. Robert Dold, U.S. Representative, 10th district of Illinois (2011-2013)
e New York Times, “Mauled by Ads, Incumbents Look to Declaw Outside Groups”, October 23, 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/us/politics/incumbents-hit-hard-by-attack-ads- considering-tightening-campaign-"nance-laws.html?hp&_r=1&
“I think what we’re going to "nd as history takes a look is that the Citizens United case diluted the voice of the average voter with the amount of advertising from outside groups. ere are going to be those that say that was a good thing, but I do think the people of the 10th District deserved better.”
6. Michael Steele, former Chairman, Republican National Committee (2009-2011)
In a RepublicReport.org video posted April 6th, 2012: http://youtu.be/aImNDsdGe-o
"I think that there’s going to be a movement if you will to somehow "x or correct this market that we currently have for campaign "nance with respect to Citizens United. And I’m "ne with that.”
7. Sue Kelly, former U.S. Representative, 19th district of New York (1995-2007)
Quoted in this article on her appearance at Boston University on September 24th, 2012: http:// dailyfreepress.com/2012/09/25/former-congressmen-address-partisan-politics/
“I think the money situation is corrupting the political process,” Kelly said in response to a student question about #aws in American politics. “ere’s so much money [in politics] now.”
Page 24 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 24 January 5, 2015 Item 06 Kelly referred to the Citizens United Supreme Court case, in which the court ruled that the First Amendment prevents the government from limiting the amount of money corporations or unions can spend on political campaigns.
8. Artur Davis, former U.S. Representative, 7th district of Alabama (2003-2011); Republican since 2012
Interviewed in e Washington Times, October 2nd, 2012: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ neighborhood/conscience-realist/2012/oct/2/artur-davis-ron-paul-citizens-united-and-public-se/
"I remain of the opinion that the Supreme Court got it wrong in Citizens United. e Court’s conceit that the "nancing of independent expenditures creates no appearance of corruption or in#uence peddling, while direct contributions do, is the kind of distinction that only a court whose members have never run for so much as city council could contemplate. While I recognize that most conservatives disagree, I subscribe to an older view that preserving trust in public institutions is a conservative value in its own right. I think over time, conservatives will lament the ruling, as the le invariably uses it to maximize its own special interest in#uence."
9. Jim Clancy, Chairman (2013-present), and previously Commissioner (2010-2013), Texas Ethics Commission
Interviewed in e Texas Tribune, February 5th, 2013: http://www.texastribune.org/2013/02/05/jim- clancy-and-paul-hobby-tt-interview/
“TT: What has Citizens United meant for the watchdog role of the Ethics Commission?”
“Clancy: Citizens United created uncertainty for the people who have to follow our rules. ere are a lot of very good, well-intentioned people trying to "nd out what to do in certain circumstances. One of challenges we have is that those people who come to us, who try to disclose, are typically the ones who are "ned. People who don’t report, who ignore the disclosure system, those folks are rarely involved. e reason why you see a real pushback when you start talking about some expanded powers, more disclosure, more "nes, is because there’s a feeling that those people who try to comply are punished for doing so.”
10. Michael Ellis, President, Wisconsin State Senate (1982-present)
Quoted in this report in the Appleton Post-Crescent: http://www.postcrescent.com/article/ U0/20130422/APC0101/304220312
And Ellis cited one of his longtime crusades — campaign "nance reform.
“We’ve had roadblocks because of the Supreme Court decision,” he said. “Citizens United shis pressure from individuals to collectivisms. Collectivisms can spend as much as they want, rendering the individual citizen of our state null and void. We have to do what we can within the con"nes of the Supreme Court decision.”
Page 25 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 25 January 5, 2015 Item 06 11. Alan Simpson, Former U.S. Senator, Wyoming (1979-1997)
Quoted in Bloomberg View, May 25, 2014: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-25/shrinking-line-separates-campaign- donations-from-bribes
Special interests work both sides of the political aisle. Some of the most persuasive voices against the in#uence of big money are prominent Republicans.
"Who can seriously contend that a $100,000 donation does not alter the way one thinks about and possibly votes on an issue?" said former Republican Senator Alan Simpson.
12. Bill Brock, Former Chairman, Republican National Committee, (1977-1981)
Quoted in Bloomberg View, May 25, 2014: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-25/shrinking-line-separates-campaign- donations-from-bribes
Bill Brock, one of the most successful chairmen of the Republican National Committee, has said the problem goes well beyond bribery: "e appearance of corruption is corrosive and is undermining our democracy."
13. Vance McAllister, U.S. Representative, 5th District of Louisiana, (2013-present)
Quoted in ink Progress, June 10, 2014: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/10/3446992/republican-congressman-demolishes-the- supreme-courts-rationale-for-killing-campaign-"nance-laws/
“Money controls Washington,” according to Congressman Vance McAllister (R-LA), who also told an audience of Louisiana accountants that Congress is caught in a “steady cycle of voting for fundraising and money instead of voting for what is right.”
Page 26 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 26 January 5, 2015 Item 06 Appendix: Republican Critics of Unchecked Corporate Power and Corporate Participation in Politics, predating Citizens United
1. eodore Roosevelt, President of the United States, 1901-1909
In his “New Nationalism” speech, 1910: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp? document=501
"For every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. e Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation."
"e true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man’s making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. e citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being."
"ere can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done."
2. William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1986-2005
In his dissent in the case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1978: http:// caselaw.lp."ndlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=435&invol=765
“Nevertheless, we concluded soon thereaer that the liberty protected by that [fourteenth] Amendment "is the liberty of natural, not arti%cial persons." Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, (1906).”
“However, the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Congress of the United States, and the legislatures of 30 other States of this Republic have considered the matter, and have concluded that restrictions upon the political activity of business corporations are both politically desirable and constitutionally permissible. e judgment of such a broad consensus of governmental bodies expressed over a period of many decades is entitled to considerable deference from this Court. I think it quite probable that their judgment may properly be reconciled with our controlling precedents, but I am certain that under my views of the limited application of the First Amendment to the States, which I share with the two immediately preceding occupants of my seat on the Court, but not with my present colleagues, the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts should be affirmed.”
“Since it cannot be disputed that the mere creation of a corporation does not invest it with all the liberties enjoyed by natural persons, United States v. White, (1944)
Page 27 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 27 January 5, 2015 Item 06 (corporations do not enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination), our inquiry must seek to determine which constitutional protections are "incidental to its very existence." Dartmouth College, supra, at 636.”
“Although the Court has never explicitly recognized a corporation's right of commercial speech, such a right might be considered necessarily incidental to the business of a commercial corporation.
It cannot be so readily concluded that the right of political expression is equally necessary to carry out the functions of a corporation organized for commercial purposes. 5 A State grants to a business corporation the blessings of potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance its efficiency as an economic entity. It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so bene"cial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere.
Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist. So long as the Judicial Branches of the State and Federal Governments remain open to protect the corporation's interest in its property, it has no need, though it may have the desire, to petition the political branches for similar protection. Indeed, the States might reasonably fear that the corporation would use its economic power to obtain further bene%ts beyond those already bestowed.”
“It is true, as the Court points out, ante, at 781-783, that recent decisions of this Court have emphasized the interest of the public in receiving the information offered by the speaker seeking protection. e free "ow of information is in no way diminished by the Commonwealth's decision to permit the operation of business corporations with limited rights of political expression. All natural persons, who owe their existence to a higher sovereign than the Commonwealth, remain as free as before to engage in political activity. Cf. Maher v. Roe, (1977).”
3. Barry Goldwater, U.S. Senator, Arizona (1953-1965), Republican nominee for President (1964)
In his seminal book, e Conscience of a Conservative, on page 54:
In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power, "nancial contributions to political campaigns should be made by individuals and individuals alone. I see no reason for labor unions – or corporations – to participate in politics. Both were created for economic purposes and their activities should be restricted accordingly.
[Italics in the original.]
Page 28 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 28 January 5, 2015 Item 06 About Free Speech For People
Launched on the day of the Citizens United decision, Free Speech For People is a national non-partisan organization which works to restore republican democracy to the people and to challenge the misuse of corporate power. e organization helps to lead the movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s rulings in Citizens United v. FEC, McCutcheon v. FEC, and Buckley v. Valeo, and to overturn the fabricated doctrine of corporate constitutional rights. e organization also engages in legal advocacy to advance a new jurisprudence in defense of our democracy. For more on Free Speech For People, visit: http://www.freespeechforpeople.org.
Page 29 of 29 “Across the Aisle: The Growing Transpartisan Opposition to Citizens United” 505 West 38th Street, Unit A4, Austin, TX 78705 512-628-0146 [email protected] 29 January 5, 2015 Item 06 American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance And Reform
Key findings from survey conducted May/June 2013 for
1 January 5, 2015 Item 06 2 Research Methodology
Hart Research (D) and American Viewpoint (R) formed a bipartisan research team to conduct an online nationwide survey among 302 business executives for the Committee for Economic Development (CED). The survey was conducted May 29 – June 3, 2013. Job titles for respondents were restricted to owner, president, chairman, partner, CEO, COO, CFO, senior vice president, department head, vice president, director, and administrator. All respondents work for a company with at least five employees, including approximately 120 respondents who work for a company with at least 1,000 employees. While online surveys are not sampled surveys, a comparable sampled survey of this size would have a statistical margin of sampling error of ±5.64 percentage points.
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 2 January 5, 2015 Item 06 3 Large Majorities Of U.S. Business Executives Agree On The Problem
85% say that the campaign finance system is in poor shape or broken.
87% say that the campaign finance system needs major reforms or a complete overhaul.
71% believe that major contributors have too much influence on politicians.
75% say that the U.S. campaign finance system is pay-to-play.
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 3 January 5, 2015 Item 06 4 Large Majorities Of U.S. Business Executives Agree That The Solutions Are Limits And Disclosure
90% support reforms that disclose all individual, corporate, and labor contributions to political committees.
89% want limits on how much money individuals, corpora- tions, and labor can give to political candidates.
89% want limits on how much money individuals, corpora- tions, labor, and independent political organizations can spend for political purposes during an election.
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 4 January 5, 2015 Item 06 5 2012 Election Was Not The Best
Thinking about the 2012 election for president, Congress, and other federal and local offices, and concentrating not on the outcome of the election but on the process of how the election was conducted, how would you say election 2012 went?
One of the best Better than About average Worse than One of the worst elections ever most most elections ever
53% 54% 44% 44% 39%
23% 24%
11% 23% 16% 5% 5% 6% 2% 1% All business executives Democrats Republicans
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 5 January 5, 2015 Item 06 6 85% Say The Campaign Finance System Has Major Problems Or Is Broken
Which one of the following best describes the current state of the system for financing political campaigns?
85%
No one selected “in great In poor shape” to describe the shape current system. w/major problems 43%
Completely 12% broken 42%
In good shape In poor shape/ w/minor problems broken
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 6 January 5, 2015 Item 06 Current System Pleases Special Interest, Empowers 7 Super PACs, Hurts Country In General
Current system DEFINITELY is doing this Current system PROBABLY is doing this
The current system is: Leading politicians to cast votes to please special interests rather than voters 61% 94% Letting Super PACs crowd airwaves: hard for campaigns to have meaningful dialogue 55% 83% Contributing to Congress’s inability to solve big problems country is facing 50% 83% Making it harder to pass economic reforms and other important legislation 46% 81% Harming our democracy 44% 74% Driving politicians and political parties to be more extreme 43% 79% Limiting quality/diversity of candidates willing and able to run for office 42% 81% Reducing competition in elections 41% 74% Distorting market economy by adding political calculations to business decisions 34% 72%
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 7 January 5, 2015 Item 06 8 87% Say The Campaign Finance System Needs Major Reforms Or Complete Overhaul
Which one of the following best describes the amount of change the system for financing political campaigns needs?
87%
No one selected “needs no Needs reforms at all” to describe the major amount of change needed. reforms 47%
Needs a complete 13% overhaul 40%
Needs minor Needs major reforms reforms/overhaul
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 8 January 5, 2015 Item 06 9 71% Say Major Contributors Have Too Much Influence On Politics Which one or two of the following, if any, come closest to your view of what the problems are with the system for financing political campaigns?
All business executives Demo- Repub- Major contributors have too much influence on politicians crats licans 71% 71% 68%
Politicians spend too much time and energy raising money 47% 36% 52% Too easy for donors to hide their identity from the public 25% 38% 19%
Not enough transparency over how people are giving 18% 21% 20%
People are under too much pressure to contribute 3% 3% 2% Business executives believe that elected officials in the U.S. are mostly looking out for: The needs of those who finance their campaigns 79% The needs of their constituents 18%
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 9 January 5, 2015 Item 06 10 69% Believe Political Donors Have A Great Deal More Influence
In the way election campaigns are financed, I think companies that spend money on I think political donors have a great deal political campaigns gain a large advan- more influence than average donors: tage in the marketplace:
75% 69% 65% Less than $50 $50 52% million million 45% or more Less 40% than $50 million $50 million or more
All business All business executives By Company Size executives By Company Size
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 10 January 5, 2015 Item 06 11 64% Say The “Pay-To-Play” System Is A Serious Problem Would you say the U.S. system of financing elections amounts to a pay-to-play system, where business executives are expected to give money if they want to have influence over public policy, or would you not describe the system this way?
The U.S. system is pay-to-play, and it is a serious problem
64%
The U.S. system is pay-to-play, not a serious problem
11%
There are elements of pay-to-play, but it’s not that bad
19%
I would not describe it as a pay-to-play system 5%
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 11 January 5, 2015 Item 06 12 86% Say There is Not Enough Transparency; 91% Want More Transparency
Do you think there is adequate transparen- In the way election campaigns are financed, cy over the way election campaigns are how much transparency does there need to financed, or not? be? 91% 86%
Great deal more 67%
8% 9%
Adequate Not adequate Little/no more Great deal/some transparency transparency transparency more transparency
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 12 January 5, 2015 Item 06 13 90% Support Full Disclosure; 80% Support Limits On Contributions
Strongly support this change to system for financing elections Somewhat support this change
Disclosing all individual, corporate, labor contributions to political committees or other organizations that spend money in election campaigns 68% 90% Reducing influence of individual donors by limiting total amount an individual may contribute to all candidates, political action committees, and party committees 48% 80% Encouraging individual contributions, especially small contributions, by giving them tax-exempt status 16% 52% Eliminating need for candidates to raise money by having full public financing of political campaigns 21% 48% Encouraging citizens to participate in elections by matching their small contributions up to $200 with public funds 10% 34% Removing all restrictions on contributions to candidates, PACs, Super PACs, and political parties while also requiring full disclosure of all contributions 8% 22%
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 13 January 5, 2015 Item 06 14 95% of Democrats and 88% of Republicans Support Disclosure Reform
Democrats who support this reform Republicans who support this reform
Disclose all individual, corporate, labor contributions to political campaigns 95% 88% Reduce influence of individual donors: limit total amount they may contribute 88% 73% Encourage individual contributions, especially small, by giving tax-exempt status 58% 51% Eliminate need for candidates to raise money: full public financing 57% 39% Encourage citizens to participate by matching small contributions up to $200 44% 28% Remove all restrictions on contributions while requiring full disclosure of all 15% 30%
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 14 January 5, 2015 Item 06 15 70% Believe Current Super PACs Should Be Made Illegal
Organizations known as Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates they support. (Supporters say this is a form of free speech) while (opponents say this allows groups or wealthy individuals to have unfair influence.) Do you believe it should be legal or illegal for these Super PACs to operate?
Super PACs should be illegal Super PACs should be legal 70% (40% feel strongly) 28% Not sure 2%
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 15 January 5, 2015 Item 06 16 89% Support Limits On Donations To Political Candidates And Groups
Should there be limits on the amount of money individuals, corporations, and labor unions can give to political candidates and independent political organizations?
Should Feel strongly 79% 89% have limits
Should not have limits 11%
Should there be limits on the amount of money outside groups, including individuals, corporations, labor unions, and independent political organizations can spend for political purposes during an election?
Should Feel strongly 78% 89% have limits
Should not have limits 9%
American Business Leaders On Campaign Finance/Reform – June 2013 – Hart/American Viewpoint for 16 January 5, 2015 Item 06 National Survey: Super PACs, Corruption, and Democracy
Americans’ Attitudes about the Influence of Super PAC Spending on Government and the Implications for our Democracy
Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law 1 January 5, 2015 Item 06
SUMMARY
A recent national survey conducted on behalf of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law demonstrates that the spending of Super PACs in this year’s election cycle has given rise to a large, bipartisan consensus that such outsized spending is dangerous for our democracy. Historical polling has repeatedly shown that Americans believe elected officials favor the interests of large contributors to their own campaign war-chests. This new poll reveals for the first time that Americans have similar fears of elected officials favoring big donors to nominally independent Super PACs — and also that many are less likely to vote because of Super PAC spending.
From April 12-15, 2012, the independent Opinion Research Corporation conducted a national telephone survey of 1,015 adults living in the continental United States.1 A summary of responses to each polling question is provided below. A detailed Appendix, including the poll’s script, methodology, and responses broken down by demographics, is available on the Brennan Center’s website at http://www.brennancenter.org/Super_PAC_Poll_Appendix.
The poll reveals that nearly 70 percent of Americans believe Super PAC spending will lead to corruption and that three in four Americans believe limiting how much corporations, unions, and individuals can donate to Super PACs would curb corruption. Of those who expressed an opinion, more than 80 percent believe that, compared with past elections, the money being spent by political groups this year is more likely to lead to corruption. And, most alarmingly, the poll revealed that concerns about the influence Super PACs have over elected officials undermine Americans’ faith in democracy: one in four respondents — and even larger numbers of low-income people, African Americans, and Latinos — reported that they are less likely to vote because big donors to Super PACs have so much more sway than average Americans.
Super PACs, Corruption, and Democracy | 1
2 January 5, 2015 Item 06 SUPER PAC SPENDING HAS PRODUCED WIDESPREAD PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION
By significant margins, Americans believe new rules that allow individuals, corporations, and unions to donate unlimited amounts to Super PACs will lead to corruption. These beliefs are held equally by both Republicans and Democrats.
• 69% of respondents agreed that “new rules that let corporations, unions and people give unlimited money to Super PACs will lead to corruption.” Only 15% disagreed.2 Notably, 74% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats agreed with this statement.3 • 73% of respondents agreed that “there would be less corruption if there were limits on how much could be given to Super PACs.” Only 14% disagreed. Here, 75% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats agreed. • Only about 1 in 5 Americans agree that average voters have the same access to candidates (and influence on candidates) as big donors to Super PACs. Two-thirds of Americans disagree.
OF THOSE EXPRESSING AN OPINION, MORE THAN FOUR IN FIVE BELIEVE SPENDING IN THIS ELECTION CYCLE IS MORE LIKELY TO LEAD TO CORRUPTION
• Half of respondents — and 85% of those expressing an opinion — agreed that spending in this election is more likely to lead to corruption than in previous elections. Only 9% of respondents thought that, compared to previous elections, it was less likely that the money spent by political groups in this election will lead to corruption. Republicans (51%) and Democrats (54%) both agreed that spending in this election is more likely to lead to corruption.
BROAD BIPARTISAN MAJORITIES BELIEVE ELECTED OFFICIALS FAVOR THE INTERESTS OF SUPER PAC DONORS OVER THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Large majorities of Americans believe that members of Congress will favor the interests of those who donate to Super PACs over those who do not — and that Super PAC donors can pressure elected officials to alter their votes.
• More than two-thirds of all respondents (68%) — including 71% of Democrats and Republicans — agreed that a company that spent $100,000 to help elect a member of Congress could successfully pressure him or her to change a vote on proposed legislation. Only one in five respondents disagreed. • More than three-quarters of all respondents — 77% — agreed that members of Congress are more likely to act in the interest of a group that spent millions to elect them than to act in the public interest. Similar numbers of Republicans (81%) and Democrats (79%) agreed. Only 10% disagreed.
2 | Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
3 January 5, 2015 Item 06
THE PERCEPTION THAT SUPER PACS HAVE EXCESSIVE INFLUENCE OVER GOVERNMENT THREATENS GRAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
An alarming number of Americans report that their concerns about the influence of donors to outside political groups make them less likely to engage in democracy. Communities of color, those with lower incomes, and individuals with less formal education are more likely to disengage due to concerns about how much influence is wielded by Super PAC donors.
• Two in three Americans — 65% — say that they trust government less because big donors to Super PACs have more influence than regular voters. Republicans (67%) and Democrats (69%) uniformly agree. • One in four Americans — 26% — say that they are less likely to vote because big donors to Super PACs have so much more influence over elected officials than average Americans. o Less wealthy and less educated Americans were significantly more likely to say they would be less likely to vote because of Super PAC influence: 34% of respondents with no more than a high school education, and 34% of those in households with an annual income less than $35,000, said they would be less likely to vote.4 o A higher number of African-American and Hispanic voters also stated that the disproportionate influence of Super PAC donors will discourage them from voting: 29% of African Americans and 34% of Hispanics said they were less likely to vote because of Super PAC influence.5 • 41% of respondents – including 49% of those who have no more than a high school education and 48% of those with household incomes under $35,000 – believe that their votes don’t matter very much because big donors to Super PACs have so much more influence.6
Super PACs, Corruption, and Democracy | 3
4 January 5, 2015 Item 06 ENDNOTES
1 The survey included 764 landline interviews and 251 cell phone interviews, and was weighted to account for geographic, demographic, and socioeconomic underrepresentation. 2 Unless otherwise indicated, the margin of error for reported survey results is ±3.1%. 3 The margin of error for all reported results for Republicans is ±4.9%, and the margin of error for all reported results for Democrats is ±4.6%. Smaller numbers of independent voters agreed with the statements in the survey; this was largely because independent voters were more likely to report having no feeling about whether they agreed or disagreed. 4 The margin of error for all reported results for those with a high school education or less is ±5.1%, and the margin of error for all reported results for those with household incomes less than $35,000 is ±5.3%. 5 The margins of error for this particular result for African-Americans and Hispanics are ±9.6% and ±13.0%, respectively. Because of low sample sizes, we were not able to conclude that these results were statistically significant. 6 Respondents with a high school education or less, and respondents with household incomes under $35,000, were significantly more likely to believe that their votes don’t matter very much because big donors to Super PACs have so much more influence.
4 | Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
5 January 5, 2015 Item 06 From: City Clerk Mail Box Subject: FW: Roundabout
From: S, Gill Williamson Sent: Sunday, January 04,20t5 11:02 AM To: City Clerk Mail Box Subject: Roundabout
To: Del Mar City Clerk,
I am strongly in favor of severing the roundabout project proposed for Jimmy Durante/San Dieguito drive from 'the sidewalk project in the same area (item 10 on the Jan, 5 city council agenda).
Stanley G. Williamson Oribia Road, Del Mar CA92014
1 JANUþ 2U15 ITEII,I 10 From: City Clerk Mail Box Subject: FW: roundabout at San Dieguito
From: Ann Williamson Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 7:39 PM To: City Clerk Mail Box Ccr GillWilliamson Subject: roundabout at San Dieguito
Dear Del Mar City Clerk, I am in favor of pulling the San Dieguito/Jimmy Durante roundabout out of the sidewalk project, to be considered separately by the city. Thank you very much, ---Ann Williamson Oribia Road
L 1 Jf\N U ö 2015 ITEtTl 10 ..
Subject: FW: Sidewalk Project
-----Origi na I Message----- From:John Cottingham Sent: Monday, December29,2Ot4 L:09 PM To: Kathleen A. Garcia Subject: Sidewa lk Project
Dear Kathleen,
I understand that the City is considering constructing a sidewalk on the east side of Camino Del Mar and Jimmy Durante inthespringandwouldliketoregistermysupportoftheproject. lliketowalkfrommyhouseonSeaviewAvenueto the plaza and the beach, and often feelthat my guests and I are exposed to potentially dangerous car and bike traffic when walking on the sections that have no sidewalks. I believe this project would support the community plan which the encourages a pedestrian friendly environment and would add an important safe route from the heart of Del Mar to please Fairgrounds and Racetrack. lf you need anythingfurtherfrom me in this regard, please let me know, but count me as a supporter of the Project.
Thanks,
John Cottingham Seaview Ave
Jl\N U þ 2Ü15 ITEtvl 10 1 Law Officcs rrl Julie iVl. Hanrilton
January 5,2015
Mayor Al Corti Cit,'* of Del Mar 1050 Camino Del Mar Del Mar. CA 92014
RE Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Citywide Sidewalk Improvement Project
Dear Mayor Corti:
I represent the Del Mar Hillside community Association ("DMHCA"), an On unincoqporàtecl association of individuals intErested in protecting the community in Del Mar. behalf of pVHCn I would like to thank the City stafffor considering our December 9, 2014 comment letter on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Citywide Sidewalk 'pUUCn portion lmprovement project. appieciates the subsequent removal of the roundabout of the Sidewalk lmprovement Projeci, which will be considered in a separate environmental documenr" DMHCA no\il supports the Citywide Sidewalk Improvement Project.
Atthough I am pleased City staff considered our comments, and made changes to the project based Jn thor" comments, I am concerned we did not receive notice of the City Council ¡1.áting this evening. In the comment letter, I specifically requested - "Please keep my office informõd of any opportunity for public input on this project." [f I did not happen to find out to about the City Council -."ìi.rg ón Sunday night, DMHCA would have missed the opportunity express its support of the project without the roundabout'
Again, thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Please keep my office informectãf any opportunity for additional public input on this project, or the separate rountlabtlut project.
Regards, (ti
Hamilton
JllN () ö 2015 ITElll 10
()705 S.rn Die¡¡ Subject: FW:ltem L0'Jan 5, Roundabout -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Stegman Sent: Monday, JanuarY 05, 2015 10:51 AM To: City Clerk Mail Box Subject: ltem 10'Jan 5, Roundabout consideration at this time. This is to support the staff recommendation to remove the proposed roundabout from means of ingress/egress' For those of us living in crest canyon the Jimmy Durante/san Dieguito intersection is our only freeway tie- while we acknowledge that this intersection does not function well during major Fairgrounds events and problems. Therefore, it seems ups, it does function. our fear is that a roundabout would exacerbate, not solve, existing particularly those proper to pull it at this time in order to do a focused study on the traffic patterns at this intersection, consideration of this that occur during Fairground events, lt is also important that canyon residents be notified of future area. We may be more than 3OO ft. away, but we have a real interest I what happens there' Barbara Stegman (7ss-8784) 1 JAN {., ö zUT5 ITEI\| 1O EXHIBIT 1 Parking Plan Matrix Number Strategy Current Conditions Short-Term Medium- and Long-Term City Cost if Applicable Create a PMPIT, partnering the City, the No oversight body currently exists which to Business Support Advisory Committee, Continued participation in the Parking Included in current staff cost – no new staff Formation of Parking Management Plan DMVA and other businesses to help manage Management Body. Continue anticipated. Start-up anticipated at 20 hours PM1 represents Bbusinesses and the City to Implementation Team (PMPIT) collectively solve parking issues in the the parking issues and resources in the implementation of those strategies selected x $75/hour = $1,500, and $5,400 annual at 6 commercialBusiness area. Downtown Area, and the implementation of by the City Council. hours per month Plan strategies selected by the City Council. Phase 1: (13th-15th St.) Install paid parking in the following locations: 6 PPD machines x $10,000 = $60,000 + Expansion of Paid Parking in Downtown Limited paid parking currently exists (Maiden 15th Street corridor between Stratford Court $3,200 staff time. PM2 Commercial Area Lane and L’Auberge garage). and Camino del Mar; 1000-1500 blocks of Camino del Mar. Phase 2: 10th-12th St. 6 PPD machines x $10,000 = $60,000 + $3,200 staff time. Increase public acceptance of paid parking Very limited paid parking at present. Parking through the reinvestment all surplus revenues exceed the costs of enforcement, and revenues from paid parking in the Downtown PM3 Reinvestment of Parking Revenues To be determined (TBD) any revenues currently go to the General Fund Area into parking programs, projects and for any City purpose. solutions, streetscape, and infrastructure improvements in the Downtown Area. Evaluate parking time limits to ensure the Use graduated parking pricing to incentivize PM4 Reevaluate Parking Time Limits Most on-street locations have a two-hour To be determined (TBD) maximum. existing limits are encouraging turnover. parking turnover in prime locations. Parking Management Expand the use of event-based signage. Research discrete changeable message Sensor based smart parking system for 200 Expand signage which guides patrons to off- signs that would blend into to the community spaces in downtown = $240/space activation Public parking signage exists for City parking street private business parking locations. character, while allowing information to be PM5 Parking Information Systems and $18/month per space. Setup cost at lots. Develop a mobile device-based parking communicated. $50,000 with $30,000 to $45,000 per year application to better direct patrons to Long-term – add parking sensors & real-time based upon five-year contract. available parking. parking guidance system. It is estimated that a year- round business Encourage private valet to better use area valet program would costs about Currently have several private valet facilities. Propose a code change to allow $100,000. tThe City’s could share in these PM6 Valet Parking operations at hotels and restaurants and the valet parking to meet parking requirements. Shared downtown valet program. costs as part of the Parking Management DMVA’s summer valet program. Look into the possibility of a year-round efforts.of a year round program could be as program. much as $100,000 1 January 5, 2015 Item 11 EXHIBIT 1 Parking Plan Matrix Expand the supply of parking by optimizing the on marketing to increase underutilized Current locations: City Hall site, Shores Park peripheral lots. Continue to work with St. PM7 Expand Peripheral Parking Opportunities Expand parking through lease or partnership. To be determined (TBD) site, Seagrove lot, and Fairgrounds lots. Peters Church, Train Station site, Post Office and others to facilitate more parking in the Commercial Area. Evaluate the current loading practices and Currently have a process to address requests determine if there are solutions that reduce Create shared loading spaces to respond to PM8 Loading Zones To be determined (TBD) for additional loading zones. the impact on traffic movement and business growth. residents. Review with the Community the options of creating a resident parking placard/sticker Coastal Commission approval estimated at program for areas impacted by business 40 hours x $75/hour = $3,000. activity. Free to residents or minimal ($0-20) Staff costs of $75 hour x 25 hours for staff Residential Parking Sticker/Placard PM9 No program in place. fee for the production costs of permit. Work reports, TPAC = $1,875. Total estimated Program with Coastal Commission to negotiate some staff cost is $4,875. time limit (e.g. 4 hours) in high-impact Permit program is estimated to cost $10,000 residential areas to discourage employee to implement. parking. Propose changes to the Municipal Code to make shared parking more realistic to adopt. Condition new developments to share parking Shared parking is allowed pursuant to the Staff to work with the Planning Commission or incentivize development to maintain all on- Municipal Code; however, it is not readily to review current shared use parking site parking for open and unrestricted public PM10 Shared Parking Staff costs of $75 hour x 25 hours for staff used due to the complexity of meeting the standards and make recommendations to the use. Expand program so that parking that is reports, TPAC = $1,875 existing code requirements. City Council for modifications. City exclusively devoted to one use is the interaction with private businesses to exception. encourage and incentivize shared parking. Create local business employee parking placard/sticker program that allows an Employees generally park where it is employee to park in designated areas both Improve Ttransit linkage to Solana Beach convenient, free and unrestricted. In many on and off street in the Commercial zone, on Transit Station and surrounding communities. PM11 Employee Parking cases, this is the residential areas. To be determined (TBD) public or contracted private parking lots. Designate free employee parking areas in Estimated 140+ on-street parking stalls are Incentivize parking on employer site or at convenient locations for carpool vehicles. used by employees. peripheral parking locations, carpooling, transit, etc. Develop a traffic transportation demand management program and designate an Bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Bus Traffic Transportation Demand Some options currently in place (e.g. taxi, existing staff person to oversee the program. linkages to Solana Beach Transit Station for PM12 Management Program (TDM): Alternative Uber and transit). However, there isn’t a Marketing/education for alternative To be determined (TBD) peak summer visitors. Transportation coordinated effort for the entire City. transportation options, rideshare, carpooling, bike/walk to work and transit. Evaluate a shuttle program. 2 January 5, 2015 Item 11 EXHIBIT 1 Parking Plan Matrix Work with SANDAG and other employers to Traffic Transportation Demand establish registry of eligible carpooling Expand program to include free parking in Potential annual costs manage program with PM13 Management Program (TDM): No designated public programs vehicle participants. Establish designated, certain metered spaces, while vehicle SANDAG $5,000 Carpooling Program signed carpool only parking spaces in occupants are actively carpooling. desirable parking locations. Consolidate parking administration in City. Parking enforcement is managed by Improve coordination among City Consider a program to improve coordination Evaluate City Parking Administration Community Services, and other management departments. Evaluate tying parking PM14 between City & businesses. To be determined (TBD) Structure issues are handled by Planning, Public administration into Traffic Transportation Long-term: Consider Alternative Works and City Manager’s Office. Demand Management Program . organizational structures such as a Parking Authority, Privatization, etc. The City has discussed partnering with St. Work with private property owners to allow Estimated costs range between $35,000 and Peters Church, and other private property Build or acquire new off-street parking their property to be used for public parking. $50,000 per space for structure parking and SU1 owners, to provide more parking in the inventory Build new parking on City streets and on approximately $5,000 per stall for on-street Commercial area. The City is also looking parking. at building parking at the City Hall site. City property. Most of this parking is part of the Encourage private property owners to offer Encourage new off-street parking to share business ’es required off-street parking ; parking. Look into the option to mandate new Open Up Private Off-Street Lots to public parking and to stop tying actual on- SU2 however , if a lot is underutilized and development off-street parking to be share To be determined (TBD) Public Use site parking to leases to eachindividual mostunderutilized, most of that parking is parking or open parking and not leased restricted to the site it serves. business tenant leases . directly to tenants. Work with property owners to optimize Not all parking is optimized in its striping SU3 Off-Street Parking Optimization their existing on-site parking. Review (TBD) To be determined (TBD) configuration. space size standards for efficiency. As part of the proposed street scape plan Introduce additional angled/parallel parking SU4 Addition of On-Street Parking staff is looking at ways to optimize on- layouts (e.g. Camino del Mar) as part of Ranges from $300,000 to $1,200,000. street parking. optimizing on-street parking. Parking Supply Parking There areHave four locations, which cover westerly, northerly, and southerly access to the downtown. City Hall and the Shores property (southerly) have the most supply Establish agreements with the Train and are the only locations controlled by the Partners, Post Office, Seagrove Lot Expand/seek additional sites. City. The Seagrove lot and the Train owners, St. Peters Church lot and the Fair To be determined (TBD) SU5 Peripheral Parking Partners private lots to the west, and the Fair grounds to utilize their lots when not being Long term: Enter into partnerships to use grounds to the north, could be available for used by the owners for public parking. those sites. peripheral public parking and St Peter’s lot to Optimize the use of City Hall site and the the east at 15th Street. Currently, the City Shores Site to provide Public Parking has agreements with St. Peter’s and Seagrove Lots to provide limited public parking. 3 January 5, 2015 Item 11 EXHIBIT 1 Parking Plan Matrix Parking efficiencies are Nnot allowed to be Modify the Parking Code to allow counted towards meeting required parking in mechanical parking. Allow tandem or To be determined. (This is addressed in SU6 Parking Efficiencies the current Parking Code. Therefore theire stacked parking in code calculations for the Code Requirements section.) isn’t a lot of motivation to make modifications defined land uses. Special event stacked that optimize parking. parking at peripheral or City lots. Encourage employees and patrons to Modify parking code requirements to Some City-owned bicycle racks in the public cycle. Install bike racks and bike stations at SU7 Promote Cycling provide credit for on-site bike parking/bike $500-$1,500 per unit installed right of way of Downtown. key locations. The more people cycle the lockers. more parking spaces will be available. Review & amend DMMC 30.80.030 as Staff costs of $75 / hour x 25 hours for Requirements for Use Categories are directed by City Council. A mixed-use Implement changes to DMMC by instituting ST1 Code Requirements: Use Categories staff reports, TPAC Planning found in DMMC 30.80.030. Currently prop category could be created, as a blended policies, programs, as directed by Council. rate representative of the other categories. Commission/Council review = $1,875 Review & amend DMMC 30.80.010-D as ST2 Requirements for On-Site Paid Parking directed by City Council. Decouple the Staff costs of $75 / hour x 25 hours for Code Requirements: Restriction of On- areis found in DMMC 30.80.010-D. Implement changes to DMMC by instituting provision of parking and charging for staff reports, TPAC Planning Site Paid Parking Currently, property owners are not allowed policies, programs, as directed by Council. parking in order to encourage better Commission/Council review = $1,875 to charge for required parking. utilization. Review & amend DMMC 30.80.170 as directed by City Council. Increase, or remove altogether, 50% cap to provide better flexibility for businesses to operate Staff costs of $75 / hour x 25 hours for Requirements for In-Lieu Parking are and to allow parking to be built and funded Implement changes to DMMC by instituting staff reports, Planning ST3 Code Requirements: In-Lieu Parking found in DMMC 30.80.170. in centralized and/or most utilized areas. policies, programs, as directed by Council. Commission/Council reviewTPAC = Modify or change requirements for year- $1,875 round shuttle system implemented by the City. Modify in-lieu fee for greater use to fund parking structure and/or shuttle. Requirements for Valet Parking are found Review & amend DMMC 30.80.160 as Parking Standards Parking Staff costs of $75 / hour x 25 hours for in DMMC 30.80.160. Currently, there is no directed by City Council. Include benefits Implement changes to DMMC by instituting staff reports, Planning ST4 Code Requirements: Valet Parking benefit to operating valet parking that and incentives for operating a valet parking policies, programs, as directed by Council. Commission/Council review TPAC = would apply towards an applicant’s on-site program, such as application towards on- parking requirement. site parking requirements. $1,875 Review & amend DMMC Chapter 30.80.80 as directed by City Council. Allow tandem Staff costs of $75 / hour x 25 hours for Requirements for Utilization of Paved Code Requirements: Maximized and/or stacked parking in appropriate Implement changes to DMMC by instituting staff reports, Planning ST5 Surfaces are found in DMMC Chapter Utilizations of Paved Surfaces situations. Include a requirement for a policies, programs, as directed by Council. Commission/Council reviewTPAC = 30.80.80. percentage of the overall required parking $1,875 to be comprised of micro-stalls. 4 January 5, 2015 Item 11 EXHIBIT 1 Parking Plan Matrix Review & amend DMMC 30.80.140 as directed by City Council. Increase or remove requirement that an off-site parking area must be located no more than 500 feet from the building that the parking is Code Requirements: Off-Site Shared Requirements for Off-Site Shared Use Implement changes to DMMC by instituting Staff costs of $75 / hour x 25 hours for ST6 intended to serve. Remove requirement Use Parking Parking are found in DMMC 30.80.140. policies, programs, as directed by Council. staff reports, TPAC = $1,875 that an off-site parking area must have the same owner(s) as the parcel on which sits the building that the parking is intended to serve. Remove requirement for minimum 15-year lease. Review & amend DMMC 30.80 as directed by City Council. Include a component There are currently no requirements or incentivizing on-site bicycle parking and/or Code Requirements: Alternative benefits for an applicant found in the rideshare programs for businesses, Implement changes to DMMC by instituting Staff costs of $75 / hour x 25 hours for ST7 Transportation Encouragements DMMC for implementation of Alternative perhaps by allowing a certain percentage policies, programs, as directed by Council. staff reports, TPAC = $1,875 Transportation Encouragements . in of required parking to be offset by bicycle DMMC.. parkingproven successful implementation of alternative transportation measures . Review & amend DMMC 30.80 as directed by City Council. Allow for a site-specific Parking Management Plan, utilizing a There are currently no requirements or Code Requirements: Site-Specific tailored combination of parking strategies, Implement changes to DMMC by instituting Staff costs of $75 / hour x 25 hours for ST8 provisions that allow for a Site-Specific Parking Management Plan to meet the parking requirements. This policies, programs, as directed by Council. staff reports, TPAC = $1,875 Parking Management Plan in DMMC. process could be reviewed by both Planning Commission and City Council. This strategy is us ed in many cities. Improve public perception of enforcement through a courtesy time of five to ten minutes Currently, the City actively enforces paid and Vehicle recognition technology and Sensor-based technology costs (see ST9 Enforcement past allowed on-street time requirements. time-restricted parking. enforcement or sensor –based. Strategy FT1 below). Look into technology that allows more efficient use of staff in enforcement practices. Currently, there are no guidance measures Working in conjunction with the Planning that help developers and homeowners in Commission and TPAC to make Staff costs of $75 / hour x 25 hours for staff planning for the parking impacts to their ST10 Construction Site Parking Plan recommendations to the City Council for their reports, Planning Commission/Council respective neighborhood when they are review, prepare a guidance document and/or review = $1,875 under construction. Construction parking impacts can be significant. parking requirements for construction sites. Add parking meters or paid parking along the 15th street corridor and 900-1500 block of Camino del Mar. Review the possibility to Park, Pay by Space Machines compatible with sensor-based technologies - $10,000 Currently in place on Maiden Lane and in use variable rates to facilitate turnover and to Dynamic pricing for on-street meters to FT1 On-Street Meters per machine, one per block street side. beach-adjacent areas. create revenue for transportation/parking achieve 85 % occupancy. improvement. Annual rate adjustment Initial setup at $240/space, annual at procedure (CPI). Extend meter hours. $200/space Develop a phone-based parking application to better direct patrons to available parking. 5 January 5, 2015 Item 11 EXHIBIT 1 Parking Plan Matrix Adjust rates to enhance utilization and free Assess new payment & enforcement up on-street spaces. Develop a mobile approaches to reduce labor costs, increase device-based parking application to better FT2 Off-Street Rates Currently in place at L’Auberge garage. visitor convenience. Dynamic pricing for on‐ direct patrons to available parking. Off-street street meters to achieve on- and off-street rates lower than on-street rates to encourage parking occupancy goals. rapid turnover of on-street spaces. If paid parking is widely implemented in the commercial area, evaluate on- & off-street FT3 District-Based Pricing Does not currently exist. rates differentiated by district to improve turn- over. Annual adjustment of parking prices, such as Dynamic Pricing and New Metering FT4 Does not currently exist. Seasonal adjustment to parking prices. CPI or other factors. Adjust parking prices for Technology Financial & Financial Technological 85% occupancy. Evaluate the purchase of mobile parking Parking vehicle and technology cost Mobile Vehicle Recognition and Digital FT5 Does not exist in Del Mar vehicle and license plate or vehicle estimated at $80,000 per City of Los Altos Chalking Enforcement recognition cameras and technology. PMP. 6 January 5, 2015 Item 11 T0: Ho.horable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Claire & Tom McGreal, 1L35 Stratford Ct., Del Mar DATE: fanuary 5,20Ls RE: Item 11 - Draft Downtown Area Parking Management Plan The staff report and the Downtown Parking Management Plan [Attachment A with 82 pages) provide a great deal of material to be reviewed and considered in a short period of time leading up to the Council meeting. Hopefully Council will allow time for the community discussion and input before acting on the proposed strategies, Below are some specific comments on the following issues L. Del Mar needs a comprehensive well integrated parking plan. 2. Council should ensure appropriate resident participation on the implementation team. 3. Find a funding strategy that doesn't subvert the plan's goals. 4. Bike Lanes are safer than "sharrow" lanes. 5. Consider all Downtown parking needs when defining parking requirements for City Hall Del Mar needs a comprehensive well integrated parking plan. While this initial plan for the Downtown Area is being presented as the first step in developing a Comprehensive Citywide Parking Management Plan, a neighborhood by neighborhood approach such as this will not be well integrated and is likely to result in different parking rules for each of the five defined areas. Del Mar is a small City of roughly 2000 homes, which should make it possible to implement one set of rules and guidelines for Parking throughout the community' Ensure appropriate resident participation on implementation team. The Downtown Parking Area as defined includes a large segment of residential streets; however the proposed formation of a Parking Management Implementation Team includes only business constituents [Business Support Advisory Committee, DMVA and other businesses). It is strongly recommended that this Team include a proportional representation of residents. Remember, the business owners rarely live in the defined area to be affected by these parking policies. Find a funding strategy that doesn't subvert the plan's goals. The staff recommendation of paid parking throughout the business area as a means of raising funds to support the parking strategies may be successful in raising revenues, but it seems contrary to the parking management objectives. It is counter JAN ri õ 2015 ITEfll 1 1 to the City's goal of revitalizing downtown business which could be aided by providing convenient and free parking along Camino Del Mar for customers. It is also likely to cause more visitors to migrate into the neighborhoods to find free parking, The staff report also seems to indicate that the City will have an ongoing cost of $100,000 per year for a valet parking program. Shouldn't valet parking be self- funding? Please do not eliminate our bike lane for the more dangerous "sharrow" lanes. The addition of a few incremental diagonal parking spots along Camino Del Mar would not be worth the additional safety risks posed by sharrow lanes' Consider all Downtown parking needs when defining parking requirements for City Hall. The staff report states that based upon parking demand in the Downtown Area an additionaì 200 parking stalls are required. The report suggests that management strategies and optimization will provide approximately 100 stalls, which seems very optimistic. The remaining 100 stalls must be either new on-street or off-street additional parking, Based upon this analysis, it seems that the City Hall project parking requirements should fully consider the employee parking needs and the in- iieu parking program in addition to the parking required for the City Hall / Town Hall and plaza events. Thank you for considering our comments Respectfully Submitted, Claire & Tom McGreal JllN ("rþ 2015 tTEtrl 1 1 January 5,2015 Honorable Mayor, City Council City of Del Mar 1050 Camino Del Mar Del Mar, CA9201,4 Re: Agenda item #11- Review of Draft 2015 Downtown Parking Management Plan I read that staff recommends the Council... provide direction to staff on initial recommendations, priorities and strategies suggested in the report. I ask how Council can make such recommendations when the public has not had a chance to review/digest/discuss via the TPAC process the said report. The public was told in August by a Council Liaison at a well-attended TpAC meeting that the comprehensive citywide parking management plan would be available in October. What you have before you only addresses a designated downtown area, and falls far short of being a comprehensive citywide Plan' A few of my specific concerns with the Plan before you: Priority L Strategies: pM1- as proposed there is no representation by residents nor by TPAC. How can you shut the public out? pM2 - expansion of paid parking ignores the fact that while shopping in our retail stores or dining in our restaurants patrons are far less likely to linger and try on another pair of pants or a dress or browse through more gift items or have dessert and a cup of coffee if they know the meter is running and it is going to cost them more money to stay longer, They will be agitated by the fact that they had to pay while they waited for a table, and they will eat and get out as quickly as they can. lf shopping, they will buy what they came for and not linger to look/shop for anything more. paid parking does nothing to enhance the dining experience and increase revenues for the merchants. lt may help achieve an artificial goal for parking turnover, but it will do nothing to increase sales for our merchants nor will it encourage patrons to come to Del Mar again. pMlO - shared parking, if already discussed with the property owners as stated in the Plan and no interest was shown in supporting this concept, should be recognized for what it is - private land that is not and will not be available parking inventory. Don't continue to say we have plenty of parking in the wrong places, as it is not true; the parking you covet on private property is already contracted for use by others/tenants and is not something that any more time should be spent on. lf we have a sudden surge in turn-over of property ownership, then approach the idea again. pM11- employee permit parking as proposed will take away parking inventory from the public and will do nothing to mitigate downtown parking encroachment on residential streets. lf implemented, how do you plan to induce employees to use said designated areas? Given your counts on employee vehicles and proposed employee permit parking areas, how many spaces are still needed to accommodate employee parking, both peak and non-peak times of the Year? pM12 - alternative transportation is a great talking point, but let's be practical... how many bicycle riders do you see shopping at Durante's and heading off with 2 or 3 shirt boxes in hand? How many books, stationary, orgifts are purchased from other merchants by cyclists or bus riders? This is still an area that moves via automobile, and lthink it is unreasonable to expect that patrons will come to Del Mar to shop via any method other than by car. We've proven that the residents who might walk to patronize a merchant are too few in number to allow our merchants to survive (ie: hardware store, book stores, drug store, grocery store). Don't discourage others from coming to town by forcing them to pay outrageous fees to park, or there won't be any merchants left to worry about. Jf\NtS Ztjl5 ITEtYl 11 Page 2 January 5,201-5 I see nothing in the plan before you that protects the nearby residential neighborhoods from increased demand for parking caused by pM2 and pM11as discussed earlier. We were told the whole purpose of the promised comprehensive citywide parking plan was to coordinate the many areas of the community so that parking in one area would not negatively impact another area. This Plan fails to provide that protection, and implementation of pM2 and PMLl-, especially, should not proceed in any manner untilsuch protections are in place' to increase SU1 & SU6 - new parking inventory is needed, and if the church is stillwilling to work with the City available parking, by all means work with them and make it happen! We had our chance to do so years ago and parking chose not to, and we are paying the price. Work with them, make it easy, and make it happen! Putting a plan where it ¡s most needed isthe best idea l've heard yet. And only proceed atthe City Hall propertywith that will maximize parking and minimize the physicalfootprint of the new buildings. We don't need any more space than is already existing on the site; we can't afford any more staff, and the City won't be expanding any further. We might get a few more people living here year 'round, but they won't be heavy consumers of City Hall. What is the count of weekly visits now? l'll bet it is quite low. And if working conditions were as disgusting jobs. As best I can as characterized l'd venture to guess that impacted employees would have moved on to other tell we,ve had very little turnover. And we have no one to blame but ourselves for not maintaining the facilities. parking pricing willencourage remote FT1& pM2 -according to the plan expanding paid parking and specifically parking, and parking. Again, there is nothing in the Plan to mitigate the residentialareas being used for remote in fact the Plan encourages such actions. This is totally unacceptable as proposed. parking installed there? ls there data that shows the parking use of Maiden Lane has increased since paid was And where is the Vision 2o/2o input in this report? That was a massive community project led by Councilman Sinnott that addressed the community's vision for parking, among other issues;that input seems to have been ignored in preparation of this Plan, or if included it was not noted. Another item being ignored by the draft Plan is the citizen vote on Prop J in 2ot2lhar said, in part, that we were staff not in favor of diagonal parking and sharrow lanes in the downtown area. Despite the vote of the citizens continues to pursue plans in opposition to the voice of the people, I hope you will choose to direct staff to honor and respect the vote of the community and not spend any more money ignoring the vote that was held. proposed in the Plan is: I suspect the generation of approximately $+oo,ooo annually in paid parking revenues as 2) what 1) a gross amount and not net of amortized costs for installation nor annual costs for enforcement and isreallydrivingthisdocument, lwouldmuchratherseeavibrantbaseoffinanciallysuccessfulmerchantsand the resulting sales tax revenue than paid parking receipts. I don't believe one is dependent upon the other. I recognize that an enormous amount of staff time and city resources went into the preparation of this report, however it is worthless until it addresses the mitigation needed to protect downtown parking needs from impacting neighboring residential areas' The comprehensive citywide parking plan needs to be completed and then go to TPAC so that the community may discuss it and have input before it goes to Council for staff direction and implementation, Thank you for your time and attention to my thoughts Nancy Stoke Coast Blvd. J/\NUõ2015 ITEl|lTT MINUTES Del Mar City Council Meeting Monday, December 15, 2014 Del Mar Communications Center 240 Tenth Street, Del Mar, California CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL – 6:00 P.M. Mayor Corti, Deputy Mayor Parks, Council Members Mosier, Sinnott and Worden. City Manager Huth, City Attorney Devaney, Administrative Services Director Potter and Community Development and Planning Director Garcia. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Corti led the Pledge of Allegiance. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS ITEM 1 PRESENTATION BY THE DEL MAR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION REGARDING HOLIDAY ACTIVITIES (Clerk’s File No. 1202-16) KC Vafiadis, Vice Chair, Del Mar Village Association (DMVA), spoke about the tree lighting ceremony sponsored by DMVA, and the promotion of local businesses such as the merchant voucher program, free holiday parking on the weekends and a commercial holiday decorating contest. She also shared that DMVA was working on obtaining a few of the light displays that the 22nd District Agricultural Association will no longer be using for the downtown area next year. Council received the presentation. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None GOVERNING BODY ACTIONS/COMMENTS Mayor Corti encouraged residents to respond to the Citizen Satisfaction Survey. He also noted that the City will be contacting the City Council Advisory Committees to obtain their input on the City’s budget process, feedback on priorities and suggestions for short/mid-term focused priorities. 1 January 5, 2015 Item 01 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2014 PAGE 2 CITY MANAGER REPORTS City Manager Huth noted the Penguin Plunge is scheduled for January 1, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. He also noted that City Hall would be closed to the public on December 26, 2014 and January 2, 2015. CONSENT CALENDAR Administrative Services Director Potter read the titles of Items 2 through 9 on the Consent Calendar. Council Member Worden suggested an amendment to the language in the Policy for Item 5, to remove the word “all” in reference to seniority in the policy. Council Member Parks recognized the Roy & Marian Holleman donation, referencing item 6. Council Member Sinnott removed Item 8 from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Corti recused himself from voting on Item 9 due to a conflict. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOSIER, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR PARKS, TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ITEMS 2 THROUGH 7, ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER WORDEN ABSTAINING FROM ITEM 2 (MINUTES). IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SINNOTT, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOSIER, TO ADOPT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ITEM 9 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTION PASSED 4-0, WITH MAYOR CORTI RECUSED. ITEM 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DECEMBER 1, 2014 REGULAR MEETING AND DECEMBER 1 AND 2, 2014 SPECIAL MEETINGS (Clerk’s Minutes Book) Council approved the minutes on consent. 2 January 5, 2015 Item 01 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2014 PAGE 3 ITEM 3 RATIFICATION OF LIST OF DEMANDS, DATED DECEMBER 15, 2014 (Clerk’s File No. 201-3) Council ratified the List of Demands in the amount of $996,687.09 on consent. ITEM 4 WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA (Clerk’s File No. 401-4) Council waived reading of ordinances on consent. ITEM 5 ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO AMEND CITY COUNCIL POLICY 100, “SELECTION OF MAYOR AND DEPUTY MAYOR” (Clerk’s File No. 101-2) Council adopted Resolution 2014-92, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CITY COUNCIL POLICY 100, “SELECTION OF MAYOR AND DEPUTY MAYOR” as amended, removing the word “all” in reference to seniority in the Policy, as suggested by Council Member Worden, on consent. ITEM 6 AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT A DONATION FROM THE ROY & MARIAN HOLLEMAN FOUNDATION TO REMODEL THE KITCHEN IN THE CITY’S FIRE STATION (Clerk’s File No. 502-3) Council adopted Resolution 2014-93, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM THE ROY & MARIAN HOLLEMAN FOUNDATION TO REMODEL THE KITCHEN IN THE CITY OF DEL MAR FIRE STATION LOCATED AT 2200 JIMMY DURANTE BOULEVARD AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEARS 2013-2014 AND 2014-2015 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET”, and authorized the City Manager to execute the Grant Agreement, on consent. ITEM 7 APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF RECLAIMED WATER WITH THE SAN ELIJO JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AND AMENDMENTS TO THE RECLAIMED WATER SALES AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN ELIJO JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AND THE 22ND DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION (Clerk’s File No. 406-1, 1502-10, 906-11, 803-3) Council authorized the City Manager to execute contract amendments to the Agreement for the Sale of Reclaimed Water with the San Elijo Joint Powers Authority (SEJPA) and to the Reclaimed Water 3 January 5, 2015 Item 01 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2014 PAGE 4 Sales Agreement with the SEJPA and the 22nd District Agricultural Association (22nd DAA) on consent. These amendments did not require changes to the approved Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Operating and Capital Budget. ITEM 9 SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA 14-001) FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE RIVERVIEW OFFICE PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF JIMMY DURANTE BOULEVARD AND SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE (APNS: 299-100-47, 48) (Clerk’s File No. 401-4, 406-1) Council adopted Ordinance 904, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING FINDINGS FOR AND APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, DA-14 001, (RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) REGARDING PERMIT EXPIRATION DATES FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OFFICE PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF JIMMY DURANTE BOULEVARD AND SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE (APNs: 299-100-47, 48)”, on consent. Mayor Corti was recused from Item 9 due to a conflict. ITEM 8 ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN TO ADJUST COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT, PROFRESSIONAL, AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES (502-3) Council Member Sinnott pulled the item from the Consent Calendar. Administrative Services Director Andrew Potter presented the staff report. Council Member Sinnott indicated he wanted to highlight a significant change that the City is moving to a more graduated step process. The City is also trying to be market oriented in order to attract quality employees. He noted that the pension obligations will be less with this change and the City is beginning to look at pay-for-performance. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SINNOTT, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR PARKS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2014-94, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT, PROFESSIONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES;” AND DIRECTED STAFF TO AMEND THE FISCAL 4 January 5, 2015 Item 01 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2014 PAGE 5 YEARS 2013-2014 AND 2014-2015 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,315 IN THE SALARIES PERMANENT (FY2014-2015) ACCOUNT. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS ITEM 11 COMMUNITY FORUM ON THE CITY HALL/CIVIC CENTER PROJECT (Clerk’s File No. 307-7) Jim Watkins, Camino del Mar, discussed the importance of the City Hall project and results from discussions he has had with 100 residents regarding the property and its future. He felt the mixed-use proposal provides the best opportunity for the City as it utilizes 100 percent of the site that would include all of the options that residents want. He indicated this is a great opportunity to improve the Del Mar village for decades to come. The Civic-only proposal offers few options and benefits to the residents, conversely, the mixed-use plan can be a complete center designed to serve all residents. He also noted that the commercial could offset the cost of the proposal. Kit Leeger, Camino del Mar, provided a PowerPoint presentation depicting Civic Center space program Plan A and Plan B and described the benefits of Plan B, Civic Planned for future options with below-grade parking. She listed potential future mixed-use options. KC Vafiadis, Camino del Mar, discussed the economic climate of Del Mar and indicted that there is currently no southern anchor in the City. She read a letter into the record from Del Mar resident Karla Deerinck, who is a Del Mar Heights PTA member, Del Mar Foundation member and Chair of the new committee “Young Del Mar”, regarding the need for a central community gathering space. Greg Rothnem, 9th Street, thanked staff for presenting all of the information and driving the process. He noted that the alternatives presented did not address the majority of what residents want. He felt it was extremely important to have additional parking and listed resident’s input from multiple workshops’ addressing additional parking as a priority. He encouraged Council to honor community feedback. 5 January 5, 2015 Item 01 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2014 PAGE 6 Jan McMillan, 12th Street, spoke in support of building a new City Hall with the remaining land open for public uses that may exist in the future such as open space, gardens, farmer’s market, etc. Richard Earnest, Kalamath Drive, indicated that he did not want to see the City subdivide an asset that could not be used by the public in the future, or too small in scale to be useable. He supported underground parking and encouraged Council to provide flexibility for use of the plaza space. Bill Michalsky, Drawer O, endorsed Jan McMillan’s comments and stated that this should be a simple City Hall project with parking as needed. ITEM 12 CONFIRMATION OF DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CITY HALL/TOWN HALL DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS IN PREPARATION FOR A FUTURE PUBLIC VOTE (Clerk’s File No. 307-7) Community Development and Planning Director Kathy Garcia presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. Mayor Corti opened the item to public comment and the following people spoke: Robin Crabtree, 25th Street Greg Rothnem, 9th Street Bill Michalsky, Drawer O Mayor Corti closed the item to public comment. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SINNOTT, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR PARKS, TO APPROVE THE THREE OPTIONS DESCRIBED BY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR GARCIA AT THE MEETING, AS FOLLOWS: 1. CIVIC USES ONLY: THIS OPTION INCLUDES A CITY HALL, TOWN HALL, CIVIC PLAZA, 60-70 SURFACE PARKING STALLS, WITH NINE (9) STALLS AVAILABLE FOR SURPLUS PUBLIC PARKING. ALL BUILDINGS WILL BE BUILT ON GRADE, PRECLUDING A TUCK-UNDER PARKING STRUCTURE; 2. CIVIC USES AND ADDITIONAL PARKING: THIS OPTION INCLUDES CITY HALL, TOWN HALL, CIVIC PLAZA, 60-70 PARKING STALLS IN A SURFACE LOT AND 90-100 TUCK- UNDER PARKING STALLS IN A STRUCTURE FOR A TOTAL OF 6 January 5, 2015 Item 01 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2014 PAGE 7 140-160 PARKING STALLS, WITH 109 STALLS AVAILABLE FOR SURPLUS PUBLIC PARKING. THE STRUCTURED PARKING WOULD BE UNDER THE BUILDINGS AND PLAZA AND THERE WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 11,000 SF OF PODIUM AREA THAT COULD SUPPORT FUTURE USES; 3. CIVIC USES, ADDITIONAL PARKING, AND FUTURE EXPANSION: THIS OPTION INCLUDES CITY HALL, TOWN HALL, CIVIC PLAZA, 140-160 TUCK-UNDER PARKING STALLS IN A STRUCTURE, WITH 109 STALLS AVAILABLE FOR SURPLUS PUBLIC PARKING. THE STRUCTURED PARKING WOULD BE UNDER THE BUILDING AND PLAZA, AND THERE WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 20,000-25,000 SF OF ADDITIONAL PODIUM AREA THAT COULD SUPPORT FUTURE USES; COUNCIL ALSO DIRECTED STAFF TO USE ±10% RANGES FOR THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, AS WELL AS BUILDING SIZES, LABEL THE THREE OPTIONS CONSISTENTLY, TO AND WORK WITH THE ELECTION CONSULTANT TO DRAFT BALLOT LANGUAGE TO PRESENT THE OPTIONS TO VOTERS AT A FUTURE PUBLIC VOTE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM 13 DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC VOTE FOR THE CITY HALL/TOWN HALL PROJECT AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT, AND TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH EVERYONE COUNTS FOR ADVISORY VOTE SERVICES (Clerk’s File No. 307-7) Administrative Services Director Andrew Potter provided the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. Mayor Corti opened the item to public comment and the following people spoke: Joe Sullivan, Ocean Front Bill Michalsky, Drawer O Mayor Corti closed the item to public comment. THE COUNCIL RECEIVED THE REPORT OF THE OPTIONS FOR A FUTURE PUBLIC VOTE FOR THE CITY HALL/TOWN HALL PROJECT AND IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOSIER, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SINNOTT, TO TAKE ACTION AS RECOMMENDED: 1. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN 7 January 5, 2015 Item 01 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2014 PAGE 8 AGREEMENT WITH EVERYONE COUNTS FOR ADVISORY VOTE SERVICES; AND 2. ALLOCATING $25,000 FROM PREVIOUSLY BUDGETED FUNDS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANNING RELATED SERVICES FOR THE ADVISORY VOTE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. RECESS AND CALL TO ORDER – 8:42 P.M. Mayor Corti recessed the meeting at 8:42 P.M. and called it back to order at 8:53 P.M. All Council Members were present. ITEM 14 AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR A DESIGN TEAM TO PREPARE THE DESIGN OF A NEW CITY HALL/TOWN HALL (Clerk’s File No. 307-7) Community Development and Planning Director Kathy Garcia presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WORDEN, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR PARKS, TO SEND OUT A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) WITH A REVISION TO INCLUDE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE FOR FAMILIARITY WITH DEL MAR’S DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS; MAYOR CORTI AND COUNCILMEMBER MOSIER TO BE APPOINTED TO THE SELECTION COMMITTEE; AND MAYOR CORTI AND COUNCILMEMBER MOSIER SHALL SELECT TWO MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TO NOMINATE TO SERVE ON THE SELECTION COMMITTEE AND RETURN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE NOMINATIONS, ALONG WITH A NOMINATION FOR A DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBER. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM 15 DISCUSSION OF THE USE OF A BODY CAMERA BY THE CITY’S PARK RANGER (Clerk’s File No. 1101-2) City Manager Scott Huth provided the staff report. Mayor Corti opened the item to public comment and the following people spoke: Bill Michalsky, Drawer O Robin Crabtree, 25th Street 8 January 5, 2015 Item 01 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2014 PAGE 9 Jim Benedict, Christy Lane Mayor Corti closed the item to public comment. Council received the report. ITEM 16 DISCUSSION OF THE CITY’S COMMENT LETTER IN RESPONSE TO THE ONE PASEO PROJECT (CITY OF SAN DIEGO)(Clerk’s File No. 1504-6) Community Development and Planning Director Kathy Garcia presented the staff report. Mayor Corti opened the item to public comment. The following people submitted speaker slips in support of the item but did not wish to speak: Diana Scheffler, Boquita Drive, San Diego Ann Gardner, Via Latina, San Diego Deanna Rich, Long Boat Way, San Diego Mayor Corti closed the item to public comment. Council provided direction to staff to return with an updated letter of opposition to be sent to the City Council of the City of San Diego. Council also directed staff to send a letter to Council President Sherri Lightner requesting additional time to speak at the upcoming hearing on January 27, 2015. Additionally, Council designated Council Members Sinnott and Parks to speak on behalf of the Del Mar City Council at the San Diego City Council Meeting on January 27, 2015. ITEM 17 DISCUSSION OF CHANGES TO THE DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE AND COUNCIL POLICIES RELATED TO REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS/ASSEMBLAGES AND REVIEW THE COSTS/CITY RESOURCES ALLOCATED TO CITY-SPONSORED OR CO-SPONSORED EVENTS (Clerk’s File No. 401-9, 1201-6, 208-1) Senior Management Analyst Jon Terwilliger provided the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. Mayor Corti opened the item to public comment and the following people spoke: Bill Michalsky, Drawer O 9 January 5, 2015 Item 01 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2014 PAGE 10 Robin Crabtree, 25th Street Joe Sullivan, Oceanfront Mayor Corti closed the item to public comment. Council discussed their concerns with the fee structure for non- profit groups and suggested that staff obtain more community input and return with revisions to the draft policy. Council also directed staff to send a letter to all non-profits with the draft policy for feedback. Council also encouraged staff that it be stated in the final document to separate Del Mar non-profits from regional groups. ITEM 18 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY (PACE) PROGRAMS (Clerk’s File No. 1001-5) Assistant to the City Manager Kristen Crane presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. IT WAS MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR PARKS, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOSIER, TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE IMPROVED INDEMNIFICATION LANGUAGE IN THE HERO AGREEMENT, AND REVISIONS TO THE AGREEMENTS TO NOTE THAT THE CITY NOT BE INVOLVED IN FORECLOSURES. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Council adopted Resolution 2014-95, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING TO INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY’S JURISDICTION IN THE CALIFORNIA HOME ENERGY RENOVATION OPPORTUNITY (HERO) PROGRAM TO FINANCE DISTRIBUTED GENERATION RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO A CERTAIN JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT RELATED THERETO.” Council adopted Resolution 2014-96, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING TO THE INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE INCORPORATED AREA OF THE CITY IN THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM TO FINANCE DISTRIBUTED GENERATION RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AND ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, APPROVING THE REPORT SETTING FORTH THE PARAMETERS OF THE REFERENCED PROGRAM AND CERTAIN MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.” 10 January 5, 2015 Item 01 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2014 PAGE 11 Council adopted Resolution 2014-97, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA APPROVING ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP BY THE CITY OF DEL MAR IN THE CALIFORNIA ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF AN ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT RELATING TO ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CITY IN THE AUTHORITY.” Council adopted Resolution 2014-98, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, REAFFIRMING INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY’S JURISDICTION IN THE CALIFORNIAFIRST PROGRAM TO FINANCE DISTRIBUTED GENERATION RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH RENEWABLE FUNDING, LLC.” ITEM 19 DISCUSSION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO 2015 CALENDAR FOR REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETINGS (CORTI/MOSIER) (Clerk’s File No. 401-1) Mayor Corti provided the report on behalf of Council Member Mosier and himself. He noted that in reviewing the 2015 meeting schedule, the Council may wish to discuss amendments to the meeting schedule, in particular the February 17, 2015 meeting. He noted that cancelling the February 17, 2015 meeting may allow staff to focus on Council-directed projects, following the Council Workshop on February 3, 2015. IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR CORTI, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOSIER, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2014-99, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE 2015 REGULAR MEETING CALENDAR” TO CANCEL THE FEBRUARY 17, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM 20 DISCUSSION OF IMPROVING INTERACTIONS WITH THE PUBLIC IN REGARDS TO PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THE BROWN ACT (WORDEN/CORTI)(Clerk’s File No. 1201-6, 401-7) Council Member Worden provided a brief report and provided examples where communication could be improved between the public and Council Members under “Items Not on the Agenda”. 11 January 5, 2015 Item 01 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2014 PAGE 12 City Attorney Devaney weighed in and provided cautionary examples to Council for responding to the public on items not on the agenda. Council provided feedback to staff and directed the City Attorney to amend the statement on the Council Agenda regarding Oral Communications and encouraged Council Member Worden to work with the City Manager and City Attorney on ways to share information with the Public. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 10 CONTINUED TO JANUARY 20, 2015: INTRODUCTION OF A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT A-14-02: A REQUEST TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 24-71 (DEDICATION: AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASSISTANCE) REGARDING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT SET-ASIDE AND IN-LIEU AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDOMINIUMS, STOCK COOPERATIVES OR COMMUNITY APARTMENT PROJECTS AND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS (Clerk’s File No. 401-4, 401-9) Council continued the public hearing to January 20, 2015 in order to allow further review of the proposed ordinance. ADJOURNMENT – 10:59 P.M. Mayor Haydu adjourned the meeting at 10:59 P.M. ______ANDREW POTTER, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR ATTEST: ______AL CORTI, Mayor 12 January 5, 2015 Item 01 Subject: FW: Mitigated Negative Declaration From: Dr Rocket Sent: Friday, December 05,2014 3:35 PM To: Kathleen A, Garcia Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration Dec 5, 201-4 RE: Sidewalk lmprovement Project, sections of Camino Del Mar and Jimmy Durante Boulevard Kathleen Garcia, on Wednesday you suggested the comment period for this project was somewhat flexible... Although this project may be useful I believe that monies available for pedestrian use should be focused in our Downtown zone where the Streetscape project needs attention. This project is much like picking the low hanging fruit. Downtown Streetscape has been discussed and promised for many years but has received lip service for the most part because of the complexities in design and build out. Following are my observations: o The sidewalk portion of the project proceeding from 1955 Jimmy Durante Boulevard to San Dieguito Drive should be constructed using compacted Decomposed Granite (DG) as it is a permeable surface and would be located in a relatively level area. I appreciate at intersections the materials would change for ADA construction reasons. ¡ The sidewalk portion southbound from 1955 to the Plaza as a pre-mixed aggregate of some type makes sense. perhaps it can be composed of recycled products and match newer sidewalks in the Downtown area, o The proposed DMVA project to place decorative plaques along this project should be considered for Downtown where it may attract more eyeballs and lead customers to local businesses. The cost of the DMVA proposal should not be included in this sidewalk improvement project. Save this for further discussion and application with broader appeal in the Downtown Commercial District. Spend the proposed dollars on retaining wall improvements. o The intersection of Jimmy Durante and San Dieguito; This is not an easy one but the first choice should be a traffic circle here (this had been supported by the Lagoon Committee) as it presents a solution that may slow traffic and be more environmentally welcome. lf the traffic circle idea fails lwould suggest realignment of the public Works driveway and create a four-way stop using stop signs. The idea of a signalized intersection may seem swell but would place devices that are visually unattractive and likely include lighting and other signage that would degrade the sensitive area adjacent to the Lagoon. At this particular location a traffic circle should be the winner. o Street lights should not become a part of this project. Undergrounding as a 204 project should be included although I understand that may not be likely due to funding. o Bike lanes should be well designed and included (they may be) and the transition from CDM approaching the bridge over the NCTD tracks should be forthright and safely designed as northbound vehicles typically are driving at speeds over the limit. Perhaps this project will slow motorists down. Some of my comments may already be incorporated and if so great. Thank you for this opportunitY, 1 JANUô 2015 tTEfrt 10 Bill Michalsky Drawer O Del Mar, CA 9201,4 2 J¡\fü qit)'¿t)'t5 ITEfrl 10