Dealing Responsibly with Contributions from Individuals Convicted of Crimes
What responsibility does a candidate have to check on those who make
contributions to his or her campaign? Is there a greater responsibility
when the candidate is running for a law enforcement position, from
sheriff to D.A. to judge?<br>
<br>
These questions were raised with respect to a situation in Dallas County, where the
sheriff accepted large contributions from two convicted felons,
according to <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-s…; target="”_blank”">an
article
in Sunday's Dallas <i>Morning News</i></a>.<br>
<br>
The principal question posed in the article is whether the sheriff
should have checked the backgrounds of large contributors. The <span class="vitstorybody">executive
director of the Sheriff's Association of Texas told the <i>Morning News</i>
that "</span>no state or federal laws restrict a sheriff from using
in-house databases to run criminal background checks on people who
associate with the department ... He said his department routinely runs
criminal background checks on people visiting inmates in the jail."<br>
<br>
But the Dallas County sheriff told the paper that she didn't "believe it would
have been appropriate to use her office's resources to check their
criminal histories ... she can use only state and federal criminal
justice databases for ongoing criminal investigations and hiring
purposes."<br>
<br>
The article then says, "the county has a public access website where
anyone can look up criminal case information."<br>
<br>
There are multiple issues here. Is it appropriate for a law
enforcement official to use special resources to check up on
candidates? Does a law enforcement official have a responsibility to
make such resources accessible to all candidates for the position? If
the resources are public or are made available to all candidates, is
there a responsibility to use them so that there is no appearance of
having taken money from past and potentially future criminals?<br>
<br>
For law enforcement candidates, I think there is both a responsibility
to make resources accessible to candidates and to do a quick background
check.<br>
<br>
But then what? The factors to consider in whether to return a
contribution should include:<br>
<br>
1. How long ago was the last arrest?<br>
2. How many arrests and convictions have there been?<br>
3. How serious have the crimes been?<br>
4. Was the candidate or the position involved in any way, and is there
any possibility the candidate could be seen to have helped the
contributor?<br>
5. Has there been any other sort of relationship with the contributor?<br>
6. How large is the aggregate contribution?<br>
<br>
In the Dallas County matter, there were two large contributors to the
sheriff's campaign who had
criminal records. One had a long history of theft convictions,
including recent arrests and convictions. He also helped handle the
sheriff's Christmas toy drives in 2007 and 2008. He also was involved
in a dispute with county deputies doing security work for him on the
side. There is no doubt that his contribution should have been returned.<br>
<br>
The other gave the sheriff a large corporate contribution, which was
returned for other reasons, and then $3,000 personally. The sheriff
socialized with him on at least two occasions, including dinner at his
home. He was recently involved in an oil-and-gas fraud, and has
fourteen prior criminal convictions. His last prison term ended a year
before he made the contributions. There is no doubt that his
contribution should have been returned.<br>
<br>
But someone with a couple of drug convictions years ago who gives $25
is no problem. A fifth theft arrest months before and a $500
contribution
could be problematic.<br>
<br>
When you're running for a law enforcement position, especially when
you're an incumbent, I believe it's best for yourself and the public to
check the criminal backgrounds of those who give you large
contributions, say over $300, and to give all other candidates equal
access to the resources available to you. You should state this
publicly, so that people with serious and/or recent criminal records
are less likely to give in the first place, and so that the public
knows that you cannot be bought by people whom you might deal or have
dealt with professionally. You could also include in your press release
the factors you will consider in determining whether to accept a
contribution. The more information up front, the better it will be for
everyone. And when in doubt, return the contribution.<br>
<br>
If you're not running for a law enforcement position, it is far less
likely that there would be a possible conflict or appearance of
impropriety. It's more a
matter of whether you want to be seen as accepting contributions from
individuals who have been convicted of crimes. This is a personal
matter, and I don't think that any closed
resources should be opened to these candidates.<br>
<br>
It is important to set a minimum contribution amount, because it would
be wrong to prevent people with criminal records from making campaign
contributions. But there is no reason why candidates for any position
need be tarred by large contributions from recently convicted felons. I
don't think there would be a constitutional problem, at least for law
enforcement officials, to refuse to take contributions from anyone
convicted of a crime within a reasonable period of time before the
contribution. But I think it's better to use reasonable factors than to
make a blanket
refusal.<br>
<br>
As for laws, I don't know of any that deal directly with this issue,
and I
don't know that there's a need for one. The best thing is to cover the
issue in ethics or campaign finance training classes for candidates
and, if the matter
arises, candidates cannot say they never considered the issue or that
they didn't believe it is right to do background checks. If they know they can't
wiggle out of it later, they may actually deal with the issue responsibly
before the campaign begins. This is another way that ethics training
can be
useful to everyone.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---