Fundraising for a Political Convention: Pay to Play, Transparency, and a Blind Spot

Even the most enthusiastic good government politicians often have a serious blind spot:  themselves. They believe that everyone else is into pay to play and selling out to big contributors. But not them. They're only doing what's best for their city.  They have only the community's best interests in mind. And sometimes the community needs those big contributors, and who but he is best situated to get them to open their wallets? However, the big contributors don't have the same blind spot, so they don't want the public to know how much they're shelling out. This means that, adding insult to injury, the big contributions are not disclosed. There is no transparency. At least until it all comes out, which it eventually does.

This time, it came out in an article on the WNYC Radio website by Andrea Bernstein. The politician with the big blind spot (he's 6' 5") is New York City mayor Bill de Blasio. And what he's raising millions of dollars for is trying to lure the Democratic Party convention to Brooklyn, to show that he can get the money together to pay for a lot of the costs.

That might be fine if he were asking for small contributions from city Democrats who are excited by the prospect. But it appears that he is getting huge contributions from big companies and wealthy individuals, many of whom frequently seek special benefits from the city government. In a city that has pretty much gotten rid of pay to play by having a public campaign financing program and full transparency, de Blasio is engaging in what appears to be pay to play without any transparency. That requires one big blind spot.

How can someone who has spoken out so strongly against big money interests and in favor of full transparency do something like this? So that he can be the hero, so that he can get credit for bringing the convention to his town. Vanity is at the core of the blind spot.

Why, one wonders, should it be the mayor's job to push for a political party convention? Can't the party itself take care of this, while the mayor runs the city? As soon as a mayor starts cheerleading for something that involves the raising of lots of funds, such as a pet charity, it instantly is seen by restricted sources, and then the public when it comes out, as pay to play, as an attempt by a mayor to use his position to get something he wants, often, as in this case, something that puts a big feather in his cap.

There's a good quote in the article, from Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics:  "At a minimum, donors or those pledging money are developing good will and a relationship that may pay off over time." In other words, they are giving so that the mayor will owe them something, and that something will likely come at the public's expense and to their personal benefit.

De Blasio is not ignoring the transparency issue. He says he satisfies the requirements of transparency by insisting that, if the city wins the convention, he will then disclose the contributions and contributors. But even if the city loses its bid and most of the money goes back into the wallets of the contributors, they will have given something as part of an ongoing reciprocal relationship with the mayor, and they will rightly be seen as doing just that. Once a big contribution has been made, something is owed. Only someone with a big blind spot — someone who thinks that pay to play does not apply to himself — will deny that.

De Blasio could set a valuable example for good government by coming out and admitting that he has a blind spot, and that he was wrong not to insist on full transparency from the start, as well as limits on contributions from restricted sources. And maybe even that he should have left the booster job to others.

P.S. New York did not get the convention.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---