Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The Ihlan/Klausing proposal will not significantly accomplish any <br />desired goals for several reasons: <br /> <br />1. Alerting the public to an organizations support of a candidate requires <br />more than simply knowing the name of a donor. Example.." Since the <br />proposal only requires the disclosure of a donor's name, several employees of a <br />company could easily make separate donation, and avoid the intent of the law. <br /> <br />2. Determining conflicts of interest requires more than simply knowing the <br />name of a donor. <br />Example".. Since the proposal does not require the disclosure of a donor's address, <br />several people who live next door to a proposed development could easily donate to a <br />candidate and the public would not be aware of the potential conflict when the <br />development comes before the council for a vote. <br /> <br />3. The public will have little additional: information with a disclosure limit set <br />at over $100. <br />Example... If a person in a past campaign donated $200 to their favorite candidate, <br />they will now state that the $200 donation comes from them and their spouse, <br />meaning $100 from two people. Since most residents of Roseville have adult children, <br />they could say that a $300 donation comes from them, their spouse,. and a child, <br />meaning $100 from three people. Both scenarios mean large donations for a <br />candidate with no disclosure. <br /> <br />- . <br /> <br />4. Special interests wiU still continue to contribute anonymously. <br />Example... Instead of pooling money, a special interest group simply educates their <br />members to all donate $100, and not one penny more, to a specific candidate. <br /> <br />-" <br /> <br />-" <br /> <br />2 <br />