Old and New Local Independent Spending in Elections

Anonymous

Mon, 11/04/2013 - 05:47

Campaign Finance

Update: February 7, 2014 
It took the Jon Stewart Show three months to catch up with the City Ethics blog, but it was worth the wait. You have to watch <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-5-2014/koch-blocked">the video they made about the Coralville, IA situation I discuss below</a>. The defense of what occurred is truly incredible. 
 
There has always been independent spending in local elections, and
it has always been (and been seen as) a source of influence and pay
to play. In the last few decades, disclosure requirements have
increased, as have, in some states, limits on contributions. A few
cities and counties have even instituted public campaign financing
programs, to help rid campaigns of both influence and pay to play. 
 
But recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have undermined public
financing programs and disclosure requirements by allowing more, and
more secret, independent spending. The effects can be seen in this
year's crop of local elections. Two articles in today's New York
Times, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/us/politics/koch-group-has-ambitions-…; target="”_blank”">one
focused on an Iowa town</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/us/politics/outside-money-at-issue-in…; target="”_blank”">the
other on Boston</a>, show some of the contrasts between the new
and the old independent spending.

The old form of independent spending involved primarily local unions
and business associations. Union locals provided manpower and some
money and events, and local business associations provided money and
events. Local parties, sometimes with help from the state party,
also spent money, held events, and provided manpower. Everyone who
wanted to know had a good idea who the independent spenders were and, for the most part,
what they were after. 
 
The new form of independent spending involves outsiders, and it is
often not very clear who they are or even quite what they are after.
In Boston, there are allegations that a national union Super PAC
poured money into the race at the last second, paying primarily for
media ads. 
 
The opposition candidate, presenting himself as the "education
candidate," got money from "education groups." But it doesn't appear
that they are doing a lot of independent spending. 
 
In Boston, the difference is more local vs. national. The local
union-supported candidate (a former union leader himself) is getting
extra support through PACs. The resentment involves having unions
effectively own a candidate. But with his union background and
strong support from union locals, this would be an issue even if the
candidate were running with public financing and without any
independent spending behind him. In other words, it's still old
school independent spending, gone national. 
 
What is sad is that the union candidate insists he can be
independent of unions. “I’m disappointed that my opponent has chosen
to personally question my integrity," he is quoted as saying. When a
candidate is a former union leader who is getting huge union
support, he has to expect that the public will not see him as
independent. Just because money is spent "independently" in a
candidate's support doesn't mean that anyone will expect a candidate
to be independent of it. This is a lesson the U.S. Supreme Court
majority doesn't seem to fully understand, but most everyone else
does. 
 
The new form of independent spending in Coralville, IA (pop. 19,000)
also involves outsiders, but it's not at all clear who they are or how
much they're spending. Most of the
money has come from the Iowa branch of <a href="http://americansforprosperity.org/" target="”_blank”">Americans for Prosperity</a>,
which is associated with the conservative billionaire Koch brothers. 
 
Whereas the Boston candidates welcome the outside money (citizens
may feel different), the Coralville candidates do not. One council
candidate who criticizes the city government's debt situation —
Americans for Prosperity's major issue — "said that although
he disagreed with Americans for Prosperity on most issues, he could
not seem to catch a break because his campaign platform aligns with
the organization." He wishes they "would just go away." 
 
Even the local business and taxpayers association felt obliged to
place at the top of its homepage the following notice:<blockquote>

<h3>NOTICE: This
group has no affiliation of any kind with "Americans for
Prosperity" or any other national organization. CFRG&T
is comprised of local area business owners and citizens working
to assure a positive future for the community.</h3>
<h3>CFRG&T

membership includes a range of Democrats, Republicans, and
Independents. We have received no money from the Koch Brothers
or other right wing groups, and we do not channel money to or
from any party. Contrary to media reports, the group does NOT
make financial contributions to any political candidates.</h3></blockquote>
 
In other words, this outside independent spending is opposed by all
sides in Coralville (elections are nonpartisan). Assuming that this
association and the candidates are telling the truth, truly
uncoordinated independent spending can be more of a problem than
relatively coordinated independent spending, at least at the local
level. Candidates are rightly concerned that they will be seen as
owned by people they don't even agree with on most issues, but who
spend lots of money effectively to help them get elected. This is a
terrible position to be in. 
 
In government ethics terms, however, the biggest difference between
the old and new independent spending is that everyone knows what the
special interests in Boston want from candidates. Citizens can vote
for one or the other candidate knowing where everyone stands. 
 
In Coralville, citizens can only wonder what a candidate might owe
to Americans for Prosperity. The organization may say it is just
seeking responsible taxes and indebtedness, but citizens have no
idea what their support might lead to or whose business or personal
interests might be affected by their support. They can be
suspicious, but they don't know of whom or what about. Have large
local contractors and developers given to Americans for Prosperity?
Or is the money coming from local professionals? Or is it just a
bunch of outsiders sticking their noses into their business? 
 
Without this knowledge, citizens don't even know what corruption, if
any, might come from all this money spent on their city's election.
This is an odd and confusing position to be in. There is just a
vague, unsettling feeling of corruption, where the candidates might
or might not know whom they owe their election to, but the public
can only guess. 
 
This unsettling situation might end up backfiring on Americans for Prosperity at the expense of candidates who
never sought their support. This isn't fair. 
 
The moral of this story is that the exercise of free speech,
which many people believe should not be limited by government,
should be limited by considering the effect it might have on
candidates and citizens, not for tactical purposes, but out of
respect for communities to choose their leaders all by themselves
and with the knowledge of what's what. 
 
Update: November 7, 2013 
As it turns out, in Coralville the situation did backfire on Americans for Prosperity. Voters did vote against candidates who espoused the views in Americans for Prosperity's ads.

Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Old and New Local Independent Spending in Elections

Tags

Share This Page