Leaving Unions Out of Pay-to-Play Laws

Update: February 2, 2010 (see below)

A recent New York Times article concerns a potential conflict in the city council speaker's office. But what is most interesting about the article is the bigger question it raises about differentiating between businesses and unions in pay-to-play laws.

The head of field operations for New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg was, before she took this position, an aide to the city council speaker, supervising legislation, policy, and communications. The potential conflict involves her fundraising from unions on the speaker’s behalf while working on legislation that affected the unions.

As it turns out, the legislation was an amendment to the city's campaign finance law, and a major issue was whether to exclude unions from new campaign contribution limits to be placed on companies and individuals doing business with the city.

A union official is quoted as saying that the aide was "seeking money that was obviously tied to the unions being left out of the bill.” The speaker's spokesman responded, “The speaker’s legislative efforts are separate from her political activities.”

The aide was included on a list of officials — submitted by the mayor and council to the Conflicts of Interest Board — who are barred from soliciting political contributions because of their role in policy matters. This sort of list is unusual, but highly recommended. It is disclosure that makes it clear to policy aides that they are not supposed to do what this aide did. It's a good way of keeping them out of trouble, but clearly it doesn't always work. However, it does make a gray area black-and-white.

The bigger question raised here is, Why should unions be treated differently from any other entity involved with the city? Unions negotiate with the city, and their members work for the city and also do a great deal of work for the city as employees of contractors and subcontractors. They also hire lobbyists just like businesses, and their influence on officials is just as problematic as businesses' influence. In short, they are involved in just as many potential conflict situations.

In the article, union leaders defend being treated differently in terms of a union's First Amendment right to make its voice heard through campaign contributions. But don't those who do business with the city have the same right? And don't union members preserve the right to make their voices heard just as do those who work for entities that do business with the city?

The fact is that unions are often treated differently when it comes to pay-to-play laws. They are usually the only entities that influence politicians but are excluded from such laws. However, even when unions are included in pay-to-play laws, their voices can be heard in other ways: by bundling contributions (where this too is not illegal), making phone calls (probably unions' major political activity, especially in smaller cities, towns, and counties), and spending independently through advertisements and mailings (as they often do).

Update: February 2, 2010
On January 22, 2010, the NYC Conflicts of Interest Board reached a settlement with the mayor's former head of field operations, in which she was fined $2,500 and admitted violating City Charter § 2604(b)(12).

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---