Hudsonhubtimes.com - Letter: Didn't support campaign finance reform

At the Aug. 6 City Council meeting, I urged Council to vote "no" on the campaign reform ordinance proposed by George Roth. The vote was 7-0 in favor (8-0 if you count Mayor Currin) which quite frankly surprised me.

The ordinance proposes to limit outside influences by limiting single contributions to less than $100 per individual.

My feeling was this was an attempt to restrict new faces who don't have access to the media that incumbents and their appointees enjoy.

While some on Council acknowledged that there is an incumbent advantage, they felt that steps be needed to be immediately taken to prevent a repeat of the contributions experienced in the 2007 elections.

This is curious, since the ordinance does not and cannot prevent organizations like the Chamber or other ad hoc groups from spending unlimited amounts promoting a candidate or slate of candidates, as they did in '07.

No, I think what Mr. Roth is about is preventing a repeat of '05, not '07. He said in the meeting that there is no name recognition; the average voter is not aware of their Council person. He seems to conveniently forget that the voters may have been slightly aware of names in '05 when he, Mr. Basil and every other incumbent Council and School Board member were voted out in favor of newcomers. Coincidence, or name recognition?

I believe this ordinance was written in the same spirit as the "nepotism" charter change which the voters rejected two years ago -- another restriction on who is allowed to participate in city government. Newcomers need not apply.

Voters saw through that one, as I think they would have with this proposal, had they been given the chance by a charter vote. Instead, only seven voted on an issue during summer vacation. Perhaps reform of another kind is needed.

Alex Kelemen

Hudson