(Editor's note: The following is excerpted from an e-mail letter sent to constituents and interested parties by North Central city Rep. Susie Byrd regarding ethics and campaign finance discussions taking place)

On Monday in a Legislative Review Committee (LRC) meeting, we had a very meaty discussion about campaign finance reform. Three members of the LRC were in attendance (Rep. Steve Ortega, Rep. Beto O'Rourke and myself) with the fourth member, Rep. Lozano, absent.

Despite the implication in Tuesday's El Paso Times article [link], the members of the LRC agreed on the overall goal: We want the public to have great confidence that their elected officials are making decisions based on the best information and the best ideas, not on who contributed to whose campaign. We did not agree 100% on how we achieve that goal. Although I don't believe it is a perfect solution, I am in favor of campaign finance limits as a way to move us in this direction. Rep. O'Rourke disagreed, believing that the limits as proposed by the Ethics Commission ($500 for City Council races and $2,000 for the Mayor's race) didn't substantially address the issue and would be easy to get around (Ex. Rather than a business interest giving $10,000 outright, they would have principals in the business each give $2,000). He believes that sunshine and transparency are better at limiting undue influence than campaign contribution limits. Rep. Steve Ortega argued that because you can't limit an individual's contribution to their own campaign, campaign finance limits would make it very difficult for people to run against individuals who are very wealthy and can contribute large amounts of money to their own campaign.

Rep. Ortega and Rep. O'Rourke prevailed on the question of campaign finance limits although I don't think any of us was quite content with the outcome and felt like there might be other alternatives out there that had not yet been concerned. I am going to look for some solutions that answer their particular concerns about campaign finance limits. Any help or ideas that you might have would be much appreciated. I would like to call your attention to a website that summarizes other local campaign finance reform measures [link]. There is one reform in particular that I think might fit the bill. It was enacted in Westminster, CO and is referred to as a Conflict of Interest Model. This reform would make our ordinance much stronger than what had been proposed and answer the concerns raised by the other members of the LRC. This particular initiative made it a conflict of interest if an individual contributes more than $100 to a campaign. If contributing more than $100 became conflict of interest that would require the city representative that received the contribution to abstain from any vote that would benefit the individual or their business. In reality this would mean that those individuals who have significant business in front of the City, either for contracts or for land regulation, would be discouraged from contributing more than $100 to Mayor and Council.

In addition to the rather lively debate on campaign finance limits, the LRC took significant action on campaign finance, on lobbyist registration and conflicts and on sunshine and transparency. These actions included unanimous support for:

-- Limiting campaign fundraising to the period 180 days before an election and 90 days following the election. Also, a freeze on fundraising eight days prior to the election so that the voters have a full tally of who has contributed. The only exception would be for fundraising to pay down debt.

-- A requirement that all political action committees that donate to a campaign file their forms with the City Clerk so that the information is available locally. Currently, there is only the requirement that PACs file with the Texas Ethics Commission.

-- A requirement that lobbyists register with the City and file quarterly reports about who they are lobbying for, who they lobbied including Mayor, Council, any board members and all City staff.

-- Lobbyists will not be able to serve on any City boards or commissions.

-- Any individuals who are seeking any action from Council would be required to disclose whether they have made a campaign contribution to the Mayor or any member of Council at the time that Council action is required.

Talk about sunshine!

Because this is an issue that many of you care about and have thought a lot about, one of my constituents has suggested that we take this out for a full Town Hall debate. This will allow a more full airing of the issues at a time when more people can participate. I will organize with him to schedule this event and organize the discussion. In the meantime, please let me know what other items should be considered as part of campaign finance reform and lobbyist registration. Perhaps also there are other problems that we aren't addressing that we should be.

Susie Byrd
City Council Representative
District 2
(915) 541-4416

* * *