Indirect Campaign Contributions Allow Fraudulent Speech
It's questionable whether a contractor, developer, grantee, or other
individual or entity that seeks special benefits from a local
government should be permitted to make sizeable campaign
contributions to candidates for positions in the local government.
But if they are not permitted to make such contributions directly,
they should not be permitted to make them indirectly, either.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/may/16/developer-money-follows-circuitous…; target="”_blank”">an
article today on the KPBS website</a>, development companies and
other real estate interests found a way to support the incumbent San
Diego county supervisor's campaign without declaring, in the speech that was purchased with their money, that they were
providing the support. They did this by contributing $100,000 to the
county deputy sheriffs association PAC, which in turn funded flyers
for the supervisor candidate. The flyers told citizens that they
were paid for by the county deputy sheriffs association, with no
mention of the developers.<br>
<br>
Not only did this hide the contributions from the public, but it
also made it appear that flyers on the subject of public safety were
being paid for by deputy sheriffs. The thought that sheriffs would
take the money out of their own pockets to do this made it hard to
ignore the flyers. This is enough to decide one's vote.<br>
<br>
What we have here is legal fraudulent political money laundering.
The developers fraudulently made large contributions to a campaign
without letting the public know. The deputy sheriffs fraudulently
legitimated a candidate's bona fides on public safety without
actually spending the money. And the candidate accepted fraudulent
support for his campaign.<br>
<br>
This is ugly stuff, but perfectly legal. And although, according to
the article, the big money started coming in four days before the
PAC started supporting the county supervisor's campaign, everyone has
either denied that the contributions had anything to do with the
campaign (the developers were simply supporting the deputy sheriffs
and letting them decide whom to support) or they refused to comment.<br>
<br>
Is it asking too much to
expect people to admit that they're legally supporting a candidate in an underhanded way?
No. In fact, an Indian tribe whose political contribution account
gave $20,000 to a union PAC supporting the incumbent's opponent
admitted that the union PAC is "a well-positioned vehicle to have an
impact in the race." Not that admitting makes it right, but at least it doesn't add
insult to injury.<br>
<br>
Indirect contributions over the direct
contribution limit make a mockery of contribution limits. These
limits are not, as some say, limits on free speech: developers are
free to send out flyers under their own names. These limits
are limits on fraudulent speech. The fact that indirect contributions are so common in San Diego County shows that this clever strategy (at least if the press doesn't catch on) is a form of institutional corruption. The county's ethics environment accepts what is legal, even when it is not ethical, even when it is very risky, both for the candidates and for the public trust. The legal and the ethical need to become the same, by prohibiting these indirect campaign contributions.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---