Volunteering Professional Services: An In-Kind Contribution or Not?

Can anyone volunteer for a local political campaign without it being considered a contribution? Isn't it everyone's right to do so? Isn't this just about the most important thing a citizen can do, short of running for office herself?

According to the Toronto Metro News website last week, a "political strategist" and lobbyist who was accused of being paid to work on a mayoral campaign responded, “I’m not getting paid a red cent, asshole.” Is there nothing left to say on the issue, other than about civility? Or is it a problem for a political strategist to offer his services for free without declaring them as an in-kind contribution?

According to the article, there is a second problem here:  the political strategist's consulting firm is getting paid by the mayoral campaign. But the political strategist says that, while his firm is getting paid for "media monitoring," he is giving the campaign “a hand with rapid response.” A lot of that "rapid response," however, appears to have occurred on social media.

York University professor Robert MacDermid says that the Municipal Elections Act is the problem. While offering services to campaigns below their market value is considered a campaign contribution, the law allows for volunteers.

There are three problems with what MacDermid calls volunteering services as "a loss leader." One is that the volunteer will benefit from the connection (the strategist's firm's contract with the campaign is already benefiting him). Two is that the volunteer's clients will benefit from the connection. Three is that the volunteering of professional services might be expected by officials as part of their pay to play.

“'That’s why so many people who work at the core of campaigns are people who work in the lobbyist industry,' MacDermid said. They do it for free, because they hope to be able to easily get access to that decision-maker to present the case of the client they represent."

So the volunteering of professional services is sometimes even more than an in-kind contribution. It is effectively an investment intended to get future contracts for oneself and to get special access for one's clients, which will, of course, help one get future clients. It's a gift without limits that creates an obligation without limits, which leads to benefits without limits.

The Toronto situation appears to be especially complicated, at least according to the political strategist. He says that his firm has only lobbied the city government once (however, this says nothing about those future clients). He also says that his social media activity is completely independent, without any involvement by the campaign. But, especially considering that he is a volunteer adviser to the campaign and that his firm is doing paid work for the campaign, can anyone actually believe this (whether or not it is true is another story and, actually, irrelevant)?

Should the provision of free professional services to a campaign be considered an in-kind contribution? When, say, an ordinary citizen offers to put up lawn signs, that's nothing but the volunteering of time and is not considered an in-kind contribution. However, when the owner of a fence company offers to put up big lawn signs that require the kind of deeper holes, and possibly cement, employed for fences, and the volunteer brings both expertise and special equipment with him, should that be considered an in-kind contribution? Is it similar to the difference between providing one's living room and providing one's restaurant? Or the provision of legal, accounting, or media services? I believe such services should be considered in-kind contributions at the fair market value of the individual's services, whether or not they are provided at a discount or free of charge. The difference between free and discounted does not matter in any sense relevant to government ethics.

This isn't to say that, in most cases, such volunteer services should not be provided. Only that, if they are not fully paid for, they should both be disclosed as in-kind contributions and limited by laws on campaign contributions, including those that limit or prohibit contributions by government contractors and/or lobbyists.

The decision of elected officials not to consider free professional services in-kind contributions is, of course, not intended to make it easier for fence builders to make large, secret contributions. It is intended to make it easier for those professionals who seek to get special benefits, for themselves and/or their clients, from elected officials who, in turn, get free services, at least if they are seen likely to win the election (especially incumbents). Is this really in the public interest or in the interest of incumbents and those seeking special benefits from them?

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---