Good People Arguing for Pay-to-Play in a Charities Context
Broward County (FL), home of Ft. Lauderdale, is working on ethics
reform, something Ft. Lauderdale itself did in 2007. Today, according
to <a href="http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2009/04/john…; target="”_blank”">a
piece</a> on the <span>Sun-Sentinel</span>
Broward Politics website, a county commissioner will be introducing a
bill to prevent county commissioners from soliciting contributions for
third parties, whether charities or other candidates, from those doing business with the county. Everyone seems to
be adamantly against it, even though Ft. Lauderdale passed such a provision in 2007:<br>
<ul>Sec. 2-282. Solicitation.
No member of the city commission shall knowingly
solicit or accept any donation for any third party from any person or
entity that is doing business with the city.<br>
</ul>
<a href="http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2009/04/ritt…; target="”_blank”">Another
piece on Broward Politics </a>has two excerpts from the county mayor's
talk show, in which she and an unidentified man talk about how
important county commissioners are to charitable fundraising in the
community, with many events such as the Mayor's Ball for United Way.
Comments to the post call the sponsor of this bill a hypocrite, out of
touch with his constituents, and insulting.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/2009/04/char…; target="”_blank”">Another
Broward Politics post</a> looks at the reaction to the bill by local
charities. One charity executive wrote the commissioners, “The harm
that would be caused by the unintended consequences of this rule would
far outweigh the perceived benefits.” Charities warned that this would
mean less services for the needy.<br>
<br>
The consensus seems to be that county commissioners have a duty to the
community to solicit donations from county contractors and developers,
and that without these solicitations, these county contractors and
developers would give far less. The logic of this leads to the unspoken conclusion that county contractors and developers give to local
charities only because politicians voting on matters affecting their
pocketbooks ask them to (and sit at their tables at events such as the
Mayor's Ball). In other words, the consensus seems to be that
pay-to-play is not only acceptable, but necessary to sustaining
services to the poor.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.browardbeat.com/fear-of-feds-spurred-rodstroms-tough-new-eth…; target="”_blank”">an
article on BrowardBeat.com</a>, the reason behind this bill is that the sponsor
believes that federal agents are investigating commissioners raising
money from lobbyists for charities. They have done the same thing next
door in Palm Beach County. The sponsor "wants to take away any reason
the feds would be interested in Broward commissioners." The article
goes on:<br>
<ul>
Here is how it works: The charity asks
the commissioner to sell tickets to an event. The commissioner asks
lobbyists, who buy up thousands of dollars worth of tickets. “To raise
money, you (the commissioners) go to the people you know.
Those are the people who do business with the county,” Rodstrom [the
bill sponsor] says.<br>
<br>
In the case of the Mayor’s Ball which
benefits the United Way, more
than $100,000 is raised mainly from insiders. Almost every table
is
purchased by lobbyists and others doing business with the county. The
lobbyists then invite commissioners to sit at their tables for free,
while others are paying hundreds of dollars-a-ticket. “Everybody who is
there is paying the price to be with you (the
commissioner) and talk to you for a couple of hours,” Rodstrom says.<br>
</ul>
What about the alternative of abstaining when these contributors'
matters come before the county commission? "If commissioners
abstained from voting for every lobbyist who
bought tickets to the Mayor’s Ball, the weekly agenda would be the
Pledge of Allegiance followed by Adjournment."<br>
<br>
I've written a few times about charity problems. What makes them so
difficult to deal with, and therefore such a great end-run around
ethics and campaign finance laws, is that the best people in any
community oppose anything that might have a negative effect on
charitable giving.<br>
<br>
What they rarely admit, at least publicly, is that their argument
assumes that a large part of charitable giving involves pay-to-play. It
is sad that some of the best people in a community are willing to
accept the means of pay-to-play to achieve the end of helping charitable
organizations. And it is sad that, if they believe this end justifies the means, that they
cannot openly take this position, but instead focus on the ends. This sort of underhanded support for pay-to-play
by good people is one reason pay-to-play is so hard to deal with.<br>
<br>
Other posts on charitable giving:<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/239" target="”_blank”">1</a>, <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/568" target="”_blank”">2</a>, <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/536" target="”_blank”">3</a>, <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/349" target="”_blank”">4</a>, <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/443" target="”_blank”">5</a><span>,</span><a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/588" target="”_blank”"> 6</a><br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>