Report a Comment

Oh, you mean these funds were supposed to be for constituents? And I always thought the 'Constiuent' in the name meant from constituents ... like you and I. I know I've contributed from time to time.

In all seriousness, although the CMs said these funds would be used to help people in financial straights and to help the needy, I don't think they ever said that was the only use for these funds ... and anyone who's ever been active in DC 'activism' knows these funds are intended to cover a wide range of expenses which would otherwise come out of taxpayer dollars.

Like @SamuelMoore says above, there are other areas that should be the main focus of any ethics bill. And personally, I don't see how there's even an ethics issue in this matter. When I contributed I did so knowing my money would help councilmembers provide services that are above and beyond what the District of Columbia as a government (and the taxpayers) are willing to pay for. Ask any of the many pro-bono all volunteer groups in the District who spend their time doing good for the city if they've ever received funds from a Councilmember in one form another (sponsorship of an event, advertisement, etc.) and you'll hear YES. Ask them if they realize it came from these consituent service funds funding by people voluntarily contributing, and they probably won't even have given that a second thought. Do away with these funds on the mistaken belief that somehow the Councilmember is spending the funds in the 'wrong' way, and you'll have a lot of do-gooding groups in the city wondering why the 'donations' they've come to depend on are now gone ...

by Lance on Nov 29, 2011 12:47 pm • link • report