Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Regular City Council Meeting - 02/23/04 <br />Page 13 <br /> <br />salary were not allowed by the Supreme Court based on their <br />opined grounds of unconstitutionality; based on spending being a <br />form of free speech. <br /> <br />Counci1member Maschka questioned the practical application of <br />such legislation, with contributions received at differing times <br />during a campaign. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing sought consensus from Counci1members as to <br />their desire to have the City Attorney's office pursue this further; <br />related to pre-emption; other statutory cities; and enforcement <br />mechanisms. <br /> <br />Counci1member Ih1an noted that the intent of her raising the <br />question was to determine interest of Counci1men1bers in further <br />pursuit; and whether the City Attorney should be directed to <br />detern1ine legal impediments of such legislation; whether the <br />City Attorney should draft an ordinance; and practical issues <br />related to such legislation. <br /> <br />Counci1member Maschka questioned whether such legislation <br />may have an adverse affect, providing people with money or an <br />incumbent with advantages, thus penalizing lesser known <br />candidates. <br /> <br />Counci1member Ih1an noted it may have the affect of reducing <br />contributions. <br /> <br />Counci1member Schroeder concurred with Counci1member <br />Maschka as to providing the incumbent an advantage; and <br />questioned why this issue was being entertained when there was <br />state law related to campaign disclosure, which he supported <br />100%. <br /> <br />Counci1member Ih1an defended her desire to make the entire <br />process more transparent in providing campaign contributors as <br />public information, which may prove useful to voters as well as <br />candidates. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing clarified the issues before the Council: 1 ) <br />whether the Council wished to have the City Attorney's office <br />