You are here
Old and New Local Independent Spending in Elections
Monday, November 4th, 2013
Robert Wechsler
Update: February 7, 2014
It took the Jon Stewart Show three months to catch up with the City Ethics blog, but it was worth the wait. You have to watch the video they made about the Coralville, IA situation I discuss below. The defense of what occurred is truly incredible.
There has always been independent spending in local elections, and it has always been (and been seen as) a source of influence and pay to play. In the last few decades, disclosure requirements have increased, as have, in some states, limits on contributions. A few cities and counties have even instituted public campaign financing programs, to help rid campaigns of both influence and pay to play.
But recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have undermined public financing programs and disclosure requirements by allowing more, and more secret, independent spending. The effects can be seen in this year's crop of local elections. Two articles in today's New York Times, one focused on an Iowa town, the other on Boston, show some of the contrasts between the new and the old independent spending.
The old form of independent spending involved primarily local unions and business associations. Union locals provided manpower and some money and events, and local business associations provided money and events. Local parties, sometimes with help from the state party, also spent money, held events, and provided manpower. Everyone who wanted to know had a good idea who the independent spenders were and, for the most part, what they were after.
The new form of independent spending involves outsiders, and it is often not very clear who they are or even quite what they are after. In Boston, there are allegations that a national union Super PAC poured money into the race at the last second, paying primarily for media ads.
The opposition candidate, presenting himself as the "education candidate," got money from "education groups." But it doesn't appear that they are doing a lot of independent spending.
In Boston, the difference is more local vs. national. The local union-supported candidate (a former union leader himself) is getting extra support through PACs. The resentment involves having unions effectively own a candidate. But with his union background and strong support from union locals, this would be an issue even if the candidate were running with public financing and without any independent spending behind him. In other words, it's still old school independent spending, gone national.
What is sad is that the union candidate insists he can be independent of unions. “I’m disappointed that my opponent has chosen to personally question my integrity," he is quoted as saying. When a candidate is a former union leader who is getting huge union support, he has to expect that the public will not see him as independent. Just because money is spent "independently" in a candidate's support doesn't mean that anyone will expect a candidate to be independent of it. This is a lesson the U.S. Supreme Court majority doesn't seem to fully understand, but most everyone else does.
The new form of independent spending in Coralville, IA (pop. 19,000) also involves outsiders, but it's not at all clear who they are or how much they're spending. Most of the money has come from the Iowa branch of Americans for Prosperity, which is associated with the conservative billionaire Koch brothers.
Whereas the Boston candidates welcome the outside money (citizens may feel different), the Coralville candidates do not. One council candidate who criticizes the city government's debt situation — Americans for Prosperity's major issue — "said that although he disagreed with Americans for Prosperity on most issues, he could not seem to catch a break because his campaign platform aligns with the organization." He wishes they "would just go away."
Even the local business and taxpayers association felt obliged to place at the top of its homepage the following notice:
In other words, this outside independent spending is opposed by all sides in Coralville (elections are nonpartisan). Assuming that this association and the candidates are telling the truth, truly uncoordinated independent spending can be more of a problem than relatively coordinated independent spending, at least at the local level. Candidates are rightly concerned that they will be seen as owned by people they don't even agree with on most issues, but who spend lots of money effectively to help them get elected. This is a terrible position to be in.
In government ethics terms, however, the biggest difference between the old and new independent spending is that everyone knows what the special interests in Boston want from candidates. Citizens can vote for one or the other candidate knowing where everyone stands.
In Coralville, citizens can only wonder what a candidate might owe to Americans for Prosperity. The organization may say it is just seeking responsible taxes and indebtedness, but citizens have no idea what their support might lead to or whose business or personal interests might be affected by their support. They can be suspicious, but they don't know of whom or what about. Have large local contractors and developers given to Americans for Prosperity? Or is the money coming from local professionals? Or is it just a bunch of outsiders sticking their noses into their business?
Without this knowledge, citizens don't even know what corruption, if any, might come from all this money spent on their city's election. This is an odd and confusing position to be in. There is just a vague, unsettling feeling of corruption, where the candidates might or might not know whom they owe their election to, but the public can only guess.
This unsettling situation might end up backfiring on Americans for Prosperity at the expense of candidates who never sought their support. This isn't fair.
The moral of this story is that the exercise of free speech, which many people believe should not be limited by government, should be limited by considering the effect it might have on candidates and citizens, not for tactical purposes, but out of respect for communities to choose their leaders all by themselves and with the knowledge of what's what.
Update: November 7, 2013
As it turns out, in Coralville the situation did backfire on Americans for Prosperity. Voters did vote against candidates who espoused the views in Americans for Prosperity's ads.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
It took the Jon Stewart Show three months to catch up with the City Ethics blog, but it was worth the wait. You have to watch the video they made about the Coralville, IA situation I discuss below. The defense of what occurred is truly incredible.
There has always been independent spending in local elections, and it has always been (and been seen as) a source of influence and pay to play. In the last few decades, disclosure requirements have increased, as have, in some states, limits on contributions. A few cities and counties have even instituted public campaign financing programs, to help rid campaigns of both influence and pay to play.
But recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have undermined public financing programs and disclosure requirements by allowing more, and more secret, independent spending. The effects can be seen in this year's crop of local elections. Two articles in today's New York Times, one focused on an Iowa town, the other on Boston, show some of the contrasts between the new and the old independent spending.
The old form of independent spending involved primarily local unions and business associations. Union locals provided manpower and some money and events, and local business associations provided money and events. Local parties, sometimes with help from the state party, also spent money, held events, and provided manpower. Everyone who wanted to know had a good idea who the independent spenders were and, for the most part, what they were after.
The new form of independent spending involves outsiders, and it is often not very clear who they are or even quite what they are after. In Boston, there are allegations that a national union Super PAC poured money into the race at the last second, paying primarily for media ads.
The opposition candidate, presenting himself as the "education candidate," got money from "education groups." But it doesn't appear that they are doing a lot of independent spending.
In Boston, the difference is more local vs. national. The local union-supported candidate (a former union leader himself) is getting extra support through PACs. The resentment involves having unions effectively own a candidate. But with his union background and strong support from union locals, this would be an issue even if the candidate were running with public financing and without any independent spending behind him. In other words, it's still old school independent spending, gone national.
What is sad is that the union candidate insists he can be independent of unions. “I’m disappointed that my opponent has chosen to personally question my integrity," he is quoted as saying. When a candidate is a former union leader who is getting huge union support, he has to expect that the public will not see him as independent. Just because money is spent "independently" in a candidate's support doesn't mean that anyone will expect a candidate to be independent of it. This is a lesson the U.S. Supreme Court majority doesn't seem to fully understand, but most everyone else does.
The new form of independent spending in Coralville, IA (pop. 19,000) also involves outsiders, but it's not at all clear who they are or how much they're spending. Most of the money has come from the Iowa branch of Americans for Prosperity, which is associated with the conservative billionaire Koch brothers.
Whereas the Boston candidates welcome the outside money (citizens may feel different), the Coralville candidates do not. One council candidate who criticizes the city government's debt situation — Americans for Prosperity's major issue — "said that although he disagreed with Americans for Prosperity on most issues, he could not seem to catch a break because his campaign platform aligns with the organization." He wishes they "would just go away."
Even the local business and taxpayers association felt obliged to place at the top of its homepage the following notice:
NOTICE: This group has no affiliation of any kind with "Americans for Prosperity" or any other national organization. CFRG&T is comprised of local area business owners and citizens working to assure a positive future for the community.
CFRG&T membership includes a range of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. We have received no money from the Koch Brothers or other right wing groups, and we do not channel money to or from any party. Contrary to media reports, the group does NOT make financial contributions to any political candidates.
In other words, this outside independent spending is opposed by all sides in Coralville (elections are nonpartisan). Assuming that this association and the candidates are telling the truth, truly uncoordinated independent spending can be more of a problem than relatively coordinated independent spending, at least at the local level. Candidates are rightly concerned that they will be seen as owned by people they don't even agree with on most issues, but who spend lots of money effectively to help them get elected. This is a terrible position to be in.
In government ethics terms, however, the biggest difference between the old and new independent spending is that everyone knows what the special interests in Boston want from candidates. Citizens can vote for one or the other candidate knowing where everyone stands.
In Coralville, citizens can only wonder what a candidate might owe to Americans for Prosperity. The organization may say it is just seeking responsible taxes and indebtedness, but citizens have no idea what their support might lead to or whose business or personal interests might be affected by their support. They can be suspicious, but they don't know of whom or what about. Have large local contractors and developers given to Americans for Prosperity? Or is the money coming from local professionals? Or is it just a bunch of outsiders sticking their noses into their business?
Without this knowledge, citizens don't even know what corruption, if any, might come from all this money spent on their city's election. This is an odd and confusing position to be in. There is just a vague, unsettling feeling of corruption, where the candidates might or might not know whom they owe their election to, but the public can only guess.
This unsettling situation might end up backfiring on Americans for Prosperity at the expense of candidates who never sought their support. This isn't fair.
The moral of this story is that the exercise of free speech, which many people believe should not be limited by government, should be limited by considering the effect it might have on candidates and citizens, not for tactical purposes, but out of respect for communities to choose their leaders all by themselves and with the knowledge of what's what.
Update: November 7, 2013
As it turns out, in Coralville the situation did backfire on Americans for Prosperity. Voters did vote against candidates who espoused the views in Americans for Prosperity's ads.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
