Leaving Unions Out of Pay-to-Play Laws
<br>
<b>Update</b>: February 2, 2010 (see below)<br>
<br>
A recent New York <i>Times</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/nyregion/13conflict.html">
article</a> concerns a potential conflict in the city council speaker's
office. But what is most interesting about the article is the bigger
question it raises
about differentiating between businesses and unions in pay-to-play laws.<br>
<br>
The head of field operations for New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg
was, before she took this position, an aide to the city council
speaker, supervising legislation, policy, and communications. The
potential conflict involves her fundraising from unions on the
speaker’s behalf while working on legislation that affected the unions.<br>
<br>
As it turns out, the legislation was an amendment
to the city's campaign finance law, and a major issue was whether
to exclude unions from new campaign contribution limits to be placed on
companies and individuals doing business with
the city.<br>
<br>
A union official is quoted as saying that the aide was "seeking money
that was obviously tied to the unions being left out of the bill.” The
speaker's spokesman responded, “The speaker’s legislative efforts are
separate from her political activities.”<br>
<br>
The aide was included on a list of officials — submitted
by the mayor and council to the Conflicts of Interest Board — who are
barred from soliciting
political contributions because of their role in policy matters. This
sort of list is unusual, but highly recommended. It is disclosure that
makes it clear to policy aides that they are not supposed to do
what this aide did. It's a good way of keeping them out of trouble, but
clearly it doesn't always work. However, it does make a gray area
black-and-white.<br>
<br>
The bigger question raised here is, Why should unions be treated
differently from
any other entity involved with the city? Unions negotiate with the
city, and
their members work for the city and also do a great deal of work for
the
city as employees of contractors and subcontractors. They also hire
lobbyists just like businesses, and their influence on officials is
just as problematic as businesses' influence. In short, they are
involved in just as many potential conflict situations.<br>
<br>
In the article, union leaders defend being treated differently in
terms of a union's First Amendment right to make its voice heard
through
campaign contributions. But don't those who do business with the city
have the same right? And don't union members preserve the right to
make their voices heard just as do those who work for entities that do
business with the city?<br>
<br>
The fact is that unions are often treated differently when it comes to
pay-to-play laws. They are usually the only entities that influence
politicians but are excluded from such laws. However, even when unions
are
included in pay-to-play laws, their voices can be heard in other
ways: by bundling contributions (where this too is not illegal), making
phone calls (probably unions' major political activity, especially in
smaller cities, towns, and counties), and spending independently
through advertisements and mailings (as they
often do).<br>
<br>
<b>Update</b>: February 2, 2010<br>
On January 22, 2010, the NYC Conflicts of Interest Board reached <a href="http://archive.citylaw.org/coib/ED/ARCH-10/Keaney-Disposition.pdf">a settlement</a> with the mayor's former head of field operations, in which she was fined $2,500 and admitted violating City Charter § 2604(b)(12).<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>