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 piece on the Sun-Sentinel 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:

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.

Another piece on Broward Politics 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.

Another Broward Politics post 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.

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.

According to an article on BrowardBeat.com, 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:

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

Other posts on charitable giving:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---