2024 is an election year in the City of Coronado, and one thing is for sure – you are going to see the same names on the November ballot. Why? Because there are structural problems in Coronado that keeps the old boys club alive and well here and discourages new talent from running for City Council.
First, Coronado has very weak term limits. In 2002, Proposition F was on our ballots in the City of Coronado. The language was simple; it read “Shall the ordinance limiting Mayors and Members of the Coronado City Council to two consecutive four-year Terms be adopted?”
The community voted and the measure passed by 4,425 votes to 1,806 votes, a more than two to one margin. We all thought we were voting on real term limits, there was no mention of a limitless revolving door of candidates that sit out for a couple of years, then come back to the City Council for more taxpayer-funded healthcare and to build a pension funded by Coronado taxpayers.
In recent years, we have seen Casey Tanaka and Carrie Downey swing back through that revolving door. Casey Tanaka has done it twice, while Carrie Downey has done it three times.
Two years ago, Mayor Bailey wanted to fix this loophole and Casey wouldn’t hear of it. Why? Because it would have ended his extra paycheck and pension in exchange for very little work. It doesn’t matter what kind of word salad Casey uses to justify his position. The people of Coronado voted for real term limits in 2002 and they did not get them.
When I voted for term limits in 2002 there was nothing in the language to suggest that we were voting for an ordinance that had a huge loophole that allowed for the revolving door that we have right now. These positions should be about community service, not an extra paycheck and a pension that the taxpayers of Coronado will have to pay for the rest of their lives.
Coronado has a very low campaign contribution maximum of $200 per person. This limit was put in place in 1994 – thirty years ago. In 1994, a First-Class postage stamp cost twenty-nine cents, on January 21st of this year, a First-Class postage stamp increased to sixty-eight cents and could go even higher this year. I give this example because postage is a large part of a campaign’s expenses.
New candidates are at a structural disadvantage because they can’t get a small number of friends together to finance a decent campaign, instead, all of their friends are limited to a contribution limit that was established thirty years ago.
The United States Supreme Court has long tied campaign contributions to the First Amendment. Does our Municipal Code hinder our residents’ First Amendment rights by not adjusting for inflation over such a long period of time? I think a case could be made that it does.
In the summer of 2010, when Casey Tanaka was our mayor, the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark campaign finance decision in Citizens United v. FEC that had implications on every city in this country. Coronado is member of the California League of Cities and in September 2010, it sent out a whitepaper (http://tinyurl.com/45x46xj3) to its members titled “Local Campaign Finance Ordinances: Is your Ordinance Constitutional?” The document went through the implications of Citizens United and recommended that its member cities revisit their campaign finance ordinances in light of these changes. But Coronado, under Mayor Tanaka, did not update its ordinance to comply with the Supreme Court decision. Why didn’t we comply with federal law?
It wasn’t until 2017 when Richard Bailey was our mayor that Coronado updated the ordinance to comply with federal law.
Referring back to Coronado’s low campaign contribution limit, in the same whitepaper, the authors discussed about low campaign contribution limits, and stated that the limits must be “closely drawn.”
The authors said “in Randall v. Sorrell (2006) 548 U.S. 230, 261-262, the Supreme Court struck down Vermont’s candidate contribution limits of $400 per 2-year election cycle for governor, and lower limits for other state offices, because they were so restrictive as to impede the ability of challengers to raise sufficient funds to mount a meaningful campaign.
So, does a campaign contribution limit that has less than half of its buying power than it did thirty years ago “impede the ability of challengers to raise sufficient funds to mount a meaningful campaign?” I think the answer is yes, and we have seen it played-out with the revolving door of returning candidates.
Our elections should be fair and encourage new talent to lead our city. Right now, the system is set up allow a constant revolving door of candidates who have found a way to skirt our weak term limits.
Brad Gerbel has been a Coronado resident since 1985 and graduated from CHS in 1988. He also served as Mayor Richard Bailey’s campaign manager.
