Council Recall Election Funded by Contractors Past and Present
Talk about independent expenditures usually refers to such
expenditures in support, or more often in opposition to, federal
candidates. At the local level, the major independent expenditures
tend to come from unions, both public service unions and
construction unions. There are also cases where independent
expenditures come from contractors and others seeking direct benefits from
the candidates they support or oppose. This can look very much like
a payoff for favors done and/or for future favors, generally referred to as pay to play.<br>
<br>
One such case has arisen in Montebello, CA, a small city of 62,000.
According to <a href="http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_21150094/montebello-files-suit…; target="”_blank”">an
article posted yesterday evening on the Whittier <i>Daily News</i>
website</a>, a company that had recently obtained a no-bid $150
million, 15-year refuse hauling contract gave "close to $353,000" (or nearly $14 per registered
voter) to a 2009 Say No on Recall campaign committee it created. Two of the council
members were targeted for recall largely due to approval of the
refuse contract. The small refuse companies that had formerly done
the work provided most of the funding for the pro-recall
committee, according to <a href="http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3417933&q…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the San Gabriel Valley <i>Tribune</i></a>.<br>
<br>
The city recently filed a suit against three council members,
including the two recalled, claiming that they approved the
contract in return for promises of campaign contributions. This
would be bribery, and very hard to prove.<br>
<br>
But what about the huge independent support for and against the
council members? It is unlikely that their recall support was
promised, but it certainly makes it look to the public as if the
council members were very closely tied to the contractor, and had
made decisions that benefited the contractor rather than the
public.<br>
<br>
Sadly, one of the council members is taking the usual, legal
approach to the huge independent expenditure. He defends himself
by insisting that</span> he did not directly take money from the
contractor for the recall election. "They did support fighting the
recall, but they started their own campaign committee on their own
to stop it."<br>
<br>
More sadly, the council member has the U.S. Supreme Court in his
corner. There is this idea that independent expenditures, unlike
gifts and campaign contributions, do not create the appearance of
corruption. There is this romantic idea that independent
expenditures are a different and purer form of expenditure. One look
at the Montebello contractor's independent expenditures is enough to
make anyone realize this is rubbish.<br>
<br>
With the former contractors funding the other side, the recall
election turned into a battle between businesses seeking to retain
or get back benefits from the city government. Does anyone really
want elections to turn into battles like this?<br>
<br>
At least the contractors' contributions to the committees were
public. And it is likely that the new contractor's huge expenditure
was an important element in the council members' losing the recall
election. If its huge contributions had been secret, the result
might have been different. Despite what many people say, who is
making independent expenditures can be very important to the public
and to our elections.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---