Outside money is dominating Folsom politics. But it doesn’t always buy an election | Opinion
The city of Folsom prohibits anyone from contributing more than $150 to a candidate running for City Council, a limit meant to restrict the influence of money in local politics that has not changed for 30 years.
It hasn’t worked.
Thanks to a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that eliminated a prohibition on corporate independent expenditures, Folsom’s noble policy is no match for limitless political spending through outside campaigns not controlled by the candidates.
A spectacular example happened in the November election when an environmentalist running on an anti-expansion platform got outspent roughly four to one, mostly by business and development interests running independent campaigns.
Is reform possible?
The example is “just indicative of the endemic problems that would be nice to solve with campaign finance reform,” said the candidate, Barbara Leary of District 4, who managed to decisively win despite the healthily-funded campaigns against her.
And then there is the question of whether any reform is truly possible in Folsom. It would take a new high court in Washington and a new ruling to limit campaign contributions to independent campaigns. And the Folsom electorate may not be in the mood to legalize higher contributions directly to candidates. It was only six years ago that city voters rejected that idea.
The $150 campaign contribution limit “drives the use of independent expenditures, which are harder for the average person to track,” said Councilman Mike Kozlowski.”Probably the law of unintended consequences at work.”
Grassroots versus big money
Leary has been a fixture in the city’s political scene for more than 30 years. She decided to run a grass campaign for her district in part because she did not want Folsom to expand any longer. Just south of the city limits off White Rock Road, Angelo Tsakopoulos, arguably the region’s most powerful developer, wanted Folsom to expand so he could build a new community on 2,400 acres in both Sacramento and El Dorado counties.
“I see this as a march toward Rancho Murieta and Elk Grove,” she told The Sacramento Bee last spring. Meanwhile, she was acting as her own campaign manager as she sought to raise money, a $150 contribution at a time.
By all accounts, she was remarkably successful. She raised $24,150. She used volunteers and not paid consultants. She far outraised her closest city competitor, former Placerville Police Chief Jim Ortega, who raised $14,679.
But the real money wasn’t raised or managed by the candidates.
The North State Building Industry Association spent $19,750 on mailers supporting Ortega. So did a Folsom Chamber of Commerce political action committee, with $12,770.
The Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce PAC, meanwhile, spent $14,990 on media advertising.
Even Tsakopolous’ development company, AKT Development, got into the act. It contributed $10,000 towards an independent campaign supporting Ortega. Tsakopoulos spent 66 times more on the race than any Folsom citizen could by contributing directly to a campaign. How does that make sense?
The Folsom City Council may not be in a mood to immediately ask the voters about anything. Some council members had actively supported a measure on the November ballot to raise the sales tax by half a penny to help stabilize the city budget. But the electorate resoundingly said no.
Folsom council districts are making a difference
Leary won this race, fair and square, with a strong campaign and a message that resonated with voters. And while she didn’t have the business and development elite on her side, she did have an advantage that proved insurmountable.
Leary did not have to run a city-wide campaign. She only had to run in a fifth of the city, with about 17,000 residents as opposed to 84,000.
Why? A state law in 2001, fueled by subsequent activist litigation, has driven cities like Folsom to divide council seats into geographical districts rather than the city at large. November first election in Folsom history for the newly-drawn District 4. Her money went literally five times as far than had she run city-wide. That may have made the difference for Leary. But there is still an underlying problem.
The campaigns by the Folsom council candidates themselves should be the most important ones, not the outside money. But that too often is not the case. And that’s because of Folsom has artificially restricted what locals and others can give directly to candidates. The Folsom City Council, although it is on somewhat of a losing streak with measures before voters, should confront the craziness of its campaign finance system sooner than later. Minimizing the role of shadow campaigns is the right thing to do..
This story was originally published January 8, 2025 at 5:00 AM.