With 2010 election campaigns already underway, the City Council is revisiting the idea of amending the city’s campaign finance ordinance.

But the council members can’t decide how to handle an issue that caused controversy in the last municipal election, and change seems unlikely before the next one.

Discussion on the matter went in circles for an hour at the March 8 council meeting. Everyone acknowledged that parts of the code are confusing, but coming to an agreement about how the code should be changed was not easy.

The current code governing campaign contributions was approved in 2001. It was first called into question during the 2008 election cycle, after Councilmember Barbra Williamson was investigated by the city attorney’s office for possibly violating the code.

It was the first time the city had looked into a candidate’s campaign finances. The two-month inquiry was settled out of court and Williamson paid $2,000—the amount of the unlawful contributions—to the city’s general fund.

Williamson got into trouble because she accepted donations from three businesses controlled by the same person, something she thought the regulations permitted.

After writing a check to the city, Williamson said the council needed to revise the code to make it easier to understand.

As a result, the City Council directed staff in December 2008 to review the campaign finance ordinance for possible amendments that would clarify how contributions are totaled for persons and the businesses they control, how investigations of potential violations should be conducted and how reporting requirements should be enforced.

Williamson told the council at the beginning of its discussion last week she thinks a committee of residents would best deal with the issue; that way, no one could later say the council had crafted the laws in favor of incumbents.

“This is like the fox guarding the hen house,” she said. “We’re all candidates all the time. Let’s put this out to a committee . . . let them say what is fair.”

But Mayor Paul Miller disagreed, saying such a committee could turn highly political, and he believes the council is ethical and can work it out.

The council members found that difficult. They struggled most with how donations from people and their businesses should be counted.

The current ordinance caps individual contributions at $1,000. In addition, the rules state that a candidate cannot accept donations totaling more than $1,000 from separate corporations whose expenditures or contributions are financed, maintained or controlled by the same person or persons.

However, the law says that if a business makes a $1,000 donation to a candidate, individuals associated with that company can still contribute up to $1,000 of their personal money.

Williamson said the main problem is the law places the burden on the candidate to know how much of a business a person owns—whether it’s over 50 percent and therefore a controlling interest.

Miller agreed that’s asking too much.

“The idea is to be able to receive the funds and not have to do an inordinate amount of research to figure things out,” he said.

But Councilman Steve Sojka said it should be up to the candidate to find out if donations are coming from businesses with shared interests or partnerships.

“I don’t mind having the onus on the candidate,” he said. “Know where your money is coming from.”

Mayor Pro Tem Glen Becerra, who said he uses a professional campaign treasurer to avoid making even an “honest mistake,” said the ordinance should be clean and simple for both incumbents and new candidates to understand.

He added that the original intent of the ordinance was disclosure and evening the playing field “so a rich person couldn’t buy a council or mayor seat.”

Councilwoman Michelle Foster agreed it’s imperative to uphold those two goals so that campaigns are influenced not by money but by the quality of the candidates.

“I feel like voters should have the most influence, not wealthy individuals,” she said. “And we maintain voters’ influence by keeping contributions to a maximum amount.”

For that reason, she said, there should continue to be a cap on donations from aggregate businesses.

Sojka said he wouldn’t want to see someone with seven LLCs “bundling” donations— in other words, giving $1,000 from each of their businesses.

Still, Williamson thought the law would then be denying a business owner their right to donate.

“Do you punish a person for being a business owner by not allowing him to contribute to a political campaign?” she asked.

The lengthy discussion ended without resolution. Instead, City Attorney Tracy Noonan said she’d continue to work on the issue and bring her recommendations to a future meeting.