An Ethics Challenge and a Unusual Approach to Pay-to-Play
Some news in Greensboro, NC led me to a blog post on old news in
Greenburgh, NY, so here's the new news and the old news about two
cities with nearly the same name.<br>
<br>
In Greensboro, NC, a council candidate has thrown down <a href="http://www.electnancyvaughan.com/ethics.html" target="”_blank”">a challenge</a> to
fill out and post online the state financial disclosure form. It's not
quite appropriate, since all its references are to the state, but it
does require a good deal of disclosure. At least <a href="http://knightatlarge.blogspot.com/2009/09/ethics-and-mayors-race-in-gre…; target="”_blank”">one
mayoral candidate</a> has risen to the challenge. <a href="http://triadwatch.blogspot.com/2009/09/ethics-ethics-ethics-greensboro-…; target="”_blank”">A
local blogger </a>wonders aloud about certain candidates and what they
might have to hide.<br>
<br>
Two years ago, Greenburgh, NY took on pay-to-play with unusual campaign
financing provisions, according to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/05topicwe.h…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the New York <i>Times</i></a>. The ethics code provisions made it
"illegal for public officials to accept campaign contributions
from developers, contractors or their lawyers or agents for a year
before and a year after an application is reviewed by a town board."
Previously, officials could not solicit such contributions, but it's
hard to prove solicitation. It's far easier to prove receipt.<br>
<br>
The <a href="http://www.greenburghny.com/Cit-e-Access/webpage.cfm?TID=10&TPID=8746&q…; target="”_blank”">Greenburgh
Board of Ethics</a> website has <a href="http://www.greenburghny.com/FCpdf/General%20Information%20Sheet%20on%20…; target="”_blank”">a
page</a> that sets out in clear language for potential campaign
contributors all the limitations:<br>
<br>
<ul>The Greenburgh Code of Ethics prohibits
Town officials from accepting gifts or contributions from certain
persons in particular situations. For the benefit of potential donors,
the following lists the common situations in which gifts and
contributions may NOT be accepted by Town officials. Town officials may
not accept a gift or contribution from you:<br>
<br>
1. If you are a Town employee, or<br>
2. If you have an application pending before the Town or any Town
agency, or<br>
3. If you had an application pending during the prior 12 months, or<br>
4. If you intend to make an application within the next 12 months, or<br>
5. If you have a contract with the Town, or<br>
6 If you are seeking employment or other material financial benefit
from the Town.<br>
<br>
The restrictions apply to individuals and legal entities and to
affiliates and professional advisors. Furthermore, no gift or
contribution may be accepted on Town property.<br>
</ul>
<br>
The <i>Times</i> article refers to a "registry of prohibited contributors,"
which would be helpful to officials, but I could not find any mention
of such a registry in the ethics code or on the website. Prohibiting
contributions from those who intend to make an application in the next
twelve months deals with an important problem, but there is nothing
that requires officials to give back contributions when they learn that
a contributor was an applicant-to-be. So there is no guidance in the law about how this part of the scheme can be followed or enforced.<br>
<br>
There are two other problems with the policy. It doesn't limit
contributions to candidates who are not yet officials. This allows contractors and applicants to get the support of non-incumbents, and it isn't fair to incumbents.<br>
<br>
The policy also allows contributions to be effectively
laundered through party town committees, so that applicants and
contractors can indirectly give the same contributions they could give
before.<br>
<br>
The <i>Times</i> article quotes a local developer as saying, “A political
contribution from a developer who has a project before the
town is tantamount to a bribe, and in my opinion, you shouldn’t have to
bribe anyone to get a good project passed.” We need more developers
like this!<br>
<br>
It's also unusual to prohibit government employees from making campaign
contributions, because this is generally seen as a freedom of speech
problem. The issue here is one of coercion, and it is therefore usually
handled by prohibiting solicitation. But it is common knowledge that
local government employees don't have to be approached in any way to
get them to make contributions. They know it's expected, and they do it
without asking.<br>
<br>
In fact, in many towns and smaller cities, the majority of contributors
are government employees, contractors, and applicants. Without their contributions, fundraising would be very
difficult.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>