Volunteering Professional Services: An In-Kind Contribution or Not?

Can anyone volunteer for a local political campaign without it being considered a contribution? Isn't it
everyone's right to do so? Isn't this just about the most important
thing a citizen can do, short of running for office herself?<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/976216/lobbyist-warren-kinsella-workin…; target="”_blank”">the
Toronto Metro News website last week</a>, a "political strategist"
and lobbyist who was accused of being paid to work on a mayoral
campaign responded, “I’m not getting paid a red cent, asshole.”
Is there nothing left to say on the issue, other than about civility? Or is it a problem for a political strategist to offer his services for free without declaring them as an in-kind contribution?<br>
<br>

According to the article, there is a second problem here: 
the political strategist's consulting firm is getting paid by the
mayoral campaign. But the political strategist says that, while
his firm is getting paid for "media monitoring," he is giving the
campaign “a hand with rapid response.” A lot of that "rapid
response," however, appears to have occurred on social media.<br>
<br>
York University professor Robert MacDermid says that the
Municipal Elections Act is the problem. While
offering services to campaigns below their market value is
considered a campaign contribution, the law allows for
volunteers.<br>
<br>
There are three problems with what
MacDermid calls volunteering services as "a loss leader." One is
that the volunteer will benefit from the connection (the
strategist's firm's contract with the campaign is already benefiting
him). Two is that the volunteer's clients will benefit from the
connection. Three is that the volunteering of professional services might be expected by officials as part of their pay to play.<br>
<br>
“'That’s why so many people who work at the core of campaigns are
people who work in the lobbyist industry,' MacDermid said. They do
it for free, because they hope to be able to easily get access to
that decision-maker to present the case of the client they
represent."<br>
<br>
So the volunteering of professional services is sometimes even more
than an in-kind contribution. It is effectively an investment intended to get future
contracts for oneself and to get special access for one's clients,
which will, of course, help one get future clients. It's a gift
without limits that creates an obligation without limits, which leads to benefits without limits.<br>
<br>
The Toronto situation appears to be especially complicated, at least
according to the political strategist. He says that his firm has
only lobbied the city government once (however, this says nothing
about those future clients). He also says that his social media
activity is completely independent, without any involvement by the
campaign. But, especially considering that he is a volunteer
adviser to the campaign and that his firm is doing paid work for
the campaign, can anyone actually believe this (whether or not it
is true is another story and, actually, irrelevant)?<br>
<br>
Should the provision of free professional services to a campaign
be considered an in-kind contribution? When, say, an ordinary
citizen offers to put up lawn signs, that's nothing but the
volunteering of time and is not considered an in-kind
contribution. However, when the owner of a fence company offers to
put up big lawn signs that require the kind of deeper holes,
and possibly cement, employed for fences, and the volunteer brings
both expertise and special equipment with him, should that be
considered an in-kind contribution? Is it similar to the
difference between providing one's living room and providing one's
restaurant? Or the provision of legal, accounting, or media
services? I believe such services should be considered in-kind
contributions at the fair market value of the individual's
services, whether or not they are provided at a discount or free of charge. The difference between free and discounted does not matter in any sense relevant to government ethics.<br>
<br>
This isn't to say that, in most cases, such volunteer services
should not be provided. Only that, if they are not fully paid for, they
should both be disclosed as in-kind contributions and limited by
laws on campaign contributions, including those that limit or
prohibit contributions by government contractors and/or lobbyists.<br>
<br>
The decision of elected officials not to consider free professional services in-kind
contributions is, of course, not intended to make it easier for
fence builders to make large, secret contributions. It is intended
to make it easier for those professionals who seek to get special
benefits, for themselves and/or their clients, from elected officials who, in turn, get free
services, at least if they are seen likely to win the election (especially incumbents). Is
this really in the public interest or in the interest of incumbents and those seeking special benefits from them?<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---