Campaign Contributions by Those Doing Business with Local Governments
Campaign contributions are not generally considered to be bribes, but
the perception of large campaign contributions from local government contractors is
often that they are payments for contracts past or future, what is
known in the government ethics business as "pay-to-play."<br>
<br>
For this reason, state and local governments have taken a variety of
approaches toward dealing with this perception. The most common
response is disclosure, for example, requiring local government contractors to
disclose their status when they give a contribution above a certain
amount. The most extreme response is to prevent contractors from making
contributions at all, as is more often done with lobbyists.<br>
<br>
New York City has taken a new approach, in conjunction with its public
financing program, which, as I said in <a target="”_blank”">an earlier blog entry</a>,
has caught the attention of James Bopp, the nation's leading bringer of
suits against public campaign financing programs, according to <a href="http://www.nysun.com/new-york/city-blacklist-limits-giving-by-12000/838…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the New York Sun</a>.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/494">Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.</a>
<br>
<br>
The NYC Campaign Finance Board is compiling a list of individuals who
have "business dealings" with the city, including the usual sort of
contractors, as well as officers of organizations that get money from
the city, those with zoning variance requests before the city, and
companies receiving economic development packages from the city. In
short, anyone who could be seen as benefiting from the city and,
therefore, having a reason to give contributions for reasons other than
support of a candidate.<br>
<br>
The NYCCFB's new rule is as follows. People on the list can give only
about 1/10 of the contribution limit (they can give $400 to mayoral
candidates, $250 to council candidates), and their contributions will
not be matched by the public financing program. This allows them to
voice their support, but not give amounts that look like legal bribes.
This works in NYC, because the contribution limit is so high to begin
with. In Connecticut, for example, the limit for mayoral contributions
is only $1,000, and $400 is the amount at which contractors have to
disclose their relationship with the city.<br>
<br>
Mr. Bopp, as well as the <span>Sun,</span>
refer to the "business dealings" list as a "blacklist," akin to being
prevented from getting a job. But in fact it is because of the job they
have that they are on the list. No one requires them to work for a
company that does business or seeks money or valuable actions (i.e.
zoning variances) from the city. It has nothing to do with the
individuals' views or party membership. It is nothing more than an
attempt to deal with the perception of corruption in city government.<br>
<br>
Mr. Bopp says, in addition, "They have been presumed guilty instead of
innocent just because of their prominence in the community." But being
on the list has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, or with
prominence in the community. In fact, having such a list makes it less
likely that the individuals will be perceived as guilty of corruption.
And it gives to individuals, uncomfortable with the pressures put on
them to give when they know this can be seen as pay-to-play, the
protection of saying no to candidates seeking large contributions.<br>
<br>
Free speech is not the issue here. People making money off of
government give up some things, just the way those who work in
government do. It's part of democracy. In Russia, for example, working
in government and running a major company that does business with
government is considered just fine. And how do we perceive Russia's
government and its most prominent individuals?<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>