How a Huge Corporation's Political Spending Can Change a City's Ethics Environment
In the last few years, one of the biggest topics in the general area
of government ethics, including campaign finance, lobbying, and
transparency, has been the effect of huge campaign contributions by
corporations and billionaires, which has become increasingly doable pursuant
to a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.<br>
<br>
These decisions do not appear to have had as much effect at the
local level as at the national and state levels. I did do <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/old-and-new-local-independent-spendin…; target="”_blank”">one
blog post a year ago</a> on how local spending by an organization
funded primarily by a couple of billionaires backfired. The same
post also discusses the old-fashioned problem: local union and
business association expenditures.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.contracostatimes.com/west-county-times/ci_26703743/chevron-u…; target="”_blank”">an
article that appeared this weekend in the Contra Costa (CA) <i>Times</i></a>, the oil company Chevron has
given nearly $3 million to three "independent" committees that have
supported Richmond candidates sympathetic to <a href="http://richmond.chevron.com/home.aspx" target="”_blank”">its local refinery</a>
(the city's largest employer) and opposed candidates critical of it,
who had filed a suit against Chevron in 2013, related to safety
issues. Although presented as coalitions "of labor unions, small businesses, public
safety and firefighters associations," the
committees have received only a few thousand dollars from the two
associations.<br>
<br>
Is this sort of massive campaign expenditure ostensibly to protect a
financial investment corrupting? If so, in what way?<br>
<br>
This is not dark money, because Chevron has contributed this money
openly. So transparency is not an issue. In fact, Chevron openly
operates <a href="http://richmondstandard.com/">a "community-driven
news" website</a> that says, "We aim to provide Richmond residents
with important information about what's going on in the community,
and to provide a voice for Chevron Richmond on civic issues." But
according to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-chevron-deluge-of-camp…; target="”_blank”">a
column by Michael Hiltik in the Los Angeles <i>Times</i>
yesterday</a>, the website makes no mention of Chevron's
contributions.<br>
<br>
And Chevron has given the impression that many other important players in the community are making contributions to the committee, even though they haven't. How does this role in the election affect these players, as well as other active individuals and groups in the community? It is clear
that Chevron is willing to spend huge amounts of money (huge for the
community, not for Chevron) to get what it wants.<br>
<br>
Anyone who openly opposes the refinery or Chevron's candidates
risks the opposition of Chevron and the lack of support of anyone
who decides to stay on Chevron's good side. This could very
conceivably harm an individual, candidate, business, organization, or even political party's goals (selfish or community-spirited), which likely have little or nothing to to with the refinery. Therefore, must
they not seriously consider supporting
not only the refinery, but the candidates who favor the refinery,
even if they oppose the candidates otherwise?<br>
<br>
In other words,
Chevron's political spending skews not only elections, but also the decisions people make and
the way they approach decision-making in the community. Fear becomes
the central emotion in local politics. The city's ethics environment
therefore becomes similar to a city where there is a political
machine, which people are afraid to openly oppose. Should one company be permitted to put people in this position?<br>
<br>
Of course, if Chevron does a poor job, its spending might backfire just like
the Koch brothers' did in Coralville, IA. But if it doesn't, its
spending will likely change the ethics environment of Richmond. It
might be that Chevron is backing the best candidates. But one
company, union, or individual should not be the determining factor
in a democratic election, especially when that person is not running
for office.<br>
<br>
If Chevron really wanted to save the day, perhaps it should have
sacrificed the services of the refinery's CEO, who could run for
mayor, put the city on a better path, and then go back to work for
the refinery.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Chevron-Richmond-refinery-decisi…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the San Francisco <i>Chronicle</i></a>, in return for
permission to renovate the refinery, Chevron has agreed to spend $90
million over ten years on job training programs, college
scholarships and grants to local nonprofit organizations. But this
is part of a business deal agreed to with the council, in
recognition of the possible pollution and fires that have been
harmful to the community in the past.<br>
<br>
Spending an inordinate amount of money in an election is not only
about economic inequality. It is also about gross political inequality, and it has concrete consequences.
It makes Chevron not only the city's largest employer and charitable giver, but also its biggest political speaker, drowning out
everyone else's voices and instilling fear in the hearts of anyone
who would oppose them or their candidates politically.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---