Accepting Campaign Contributions from Those Seeking Benefits

One Indian tribe wants to build a casino, another tribe already has
one in the area and doesn't want competition. You're a council
member in the city that can effectively block the casino from being built. Both tribes want your support, and are willing to back up
that support with campaign contributions. What do you do?<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/feb/18/city-council-revisiting-de…; target="”_blank”">an
article in yesterday's <i>Spokesman-Review</i></a>, this is a question
that Spokane's council members have faced. "About two years ago, the
council voted 4-3 to oppose the tribe’s proposed casino resort. The
council now has a new make-up," and the new council president wants
to reconsider the proposal.<br>
<br>
While running for his position, the council president accepted
$1,600 in contributions from the tribe that wants to build a casino.
When accused of supporting the proposal due to the contributions,
the council president said that, in 2011, a lobbyist from the tribe
that already has a casino told him that he had found four or five
people willing to give him maximum campaign contributions (this is
an offer to "bundle" contributions, a common thing that lobbyists
do, so that their client can take credit not only for contributions,
but also for fundraising). When the council president told the
lobbyist he would continue to support the new casino, the lobbyist
told him, “You probably won’t hear from us.”<br>
<br>

The council president now says, “If campaign contributions were how
I made decisions, then I definitely would have taken the $8,000 and
I would have been on a different side of the issue.”<br>
<br>
The tribe with the casino responded by calling the council
president's allegation "offensive and simply not true.”<br>
<br>
The council president stands by his story, but, says the article,
"prefers not to name the lobbyist because he doesn’t want to make
the issue a 'personal fight.'"<br>
<br>
But the fact is that it has become a personal fight. And the reason
is that the council president took contributions from one side of
the dispute, and then defended himself by telling a story that would
make it appear that he could not be bought, that is, that he is an ethical person.<br>
<br>
Whether or not the story is true, it is beside the point. No one
will ever know whether or not he can be bought, any more than they
can know who is telling the truth. All that matters is the
appearance. If an official doesn't want to appear to be taking money
in return for support, if he does not want to appear conflicted, all he has to do is say that he will not take
money from anyone seeking benefits from the government, including
lobbyists who, by definition, are seeking benefits for their client
or employer. All he had to say to the lobbyist was, I don't take
contributions from lobbyists, and I don't accept bundling by
lobbyists, either. Then, there would be no personal fight, no accusations, no questions about his ethics.<br>
<br>
This is not just about the council president. Other council
candidates accepted contributions from the tribes. Anyone who takes
money from an interested party has to accept the fact that he will
be seen, at least by some, as supporting that party at least
partially due to the money given.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---