Posts about Campaign Finance

Some highlights include requiring councilmembers to file an annual affidavit in which they certify they paid all of their taxes and have not "been offered or accepted any bribes" or engaged in any "pay to play schemes." Really?

In the words of the teenagers I work with: "C'mon Son!!!"

The law fails to address or enact any real protections against "pay-to-play."

On November 30, Councilmember Tommy Wells (Ward 6) introduced two amendments to the bill. The first amendment would close a loophole that allows corporations to give numerous campaign contributions through subsidiary Limited Liability Corporations (LLC). Wells' amendment would limit corporations to just one contribution.

The second amendment banned companies with city contracts from giving directly to political campaigns, because councilmembers often vote on contracts for those same companies.

The Council rejected each of Wells' amendments by 12 to 1 votes. Wells seemed to have support from Cecily Collier-Montgomery, director of the Office of Campaign Finance, who said, "It certainly would make it a lot easier to enforce in terms of corporations and subsidiaries sharing a single contribution limit.

William Sanford, General Counsel of OCF went further, saying, "We agree that bundling should be prohibited and perhaps it could be more specifically addressed in this or other legislation."

Even Councilmember Jim Graham (Ward 1) openly stated during debate that every time a councilmember takes a check from a corporation, there is a string attached. Astutely, Mr. Graham has touched the heart of "Pay to Play."

When it became obvious that no other member of the council was was willing to ban subsidiary corporations from giving multiple contributions, Wells regrouped and offered a compromise for the final vote on December 20. He proposed sunlight provisions that would require LLCs to disclose their controlling interest, and require corporations with contracts with the city to disclose those contracts when contributing to local political campaigns.

Every councilmember talks about the importance of disclosure, transparency and sunlight, making this an obvious compromise. Don't ban a corporation's ability to bundle, just make the disclosure more transparent. As a friend of mine likes to say about the DC Council, "It's all about getting to 7 votes."

One would think this a no-brainer. Wells' office went back to Sanford, the OCF General Counsel, to ask for advice. He responded by saying, "The language you have suggested appears to require clarification of the relationship between subsidiaries and parent corporations which may have controlling interest. Therefore, from an enforcement standpoint it would result in a greater degree of transparency."

Armed with support of OCF and a willingness of the Council to create stronger "open government" laws, Wells brought his two sunshine amendments to the floor. Each amendment still fell 12 to 1.

And with that, the council punted on a golden opportunity to show the residents of DC that they are serious about ethics, committed to ridding our government of the corrupting influence of money, and that DC will no longer be the butt of jokes on late-night talk shows.

It is heartbreaking that in the capital city of the world's greatest democracy, the effort for transparency and accountability—values that people are giving life and limb for around the world—would fail so miserably and so anticlimactically.

Big money diminishes accountability, transparency and inclusiveness in our government. It determines who runs for office and where those candidates stand on the issues.

Money should not determine how our elected officials spend their time in the Wilson Building. Issues facing the city should do that. Problems facing the residents should come first.

The DC Council would do well in recognizing they still have some serious work to do if they are going to be taken seriously by voters.

Additionally, only 5 of the 13 Councilmembers raised more than $40,000 for their Constituent Service Funds last year, and 4 of them raised between $40,000 and $50,000. Only Jack Evans, who raised $85,000, would be really effected by the new limit.

The draft ethics bill further limits the use of Constituent Service Funds by defining more narrowly what they can be spent on. The loopholes, however, are obvious for all to see. They can't be spent on season tickets to sports events, but they can be spent on individual game tickets. They can't be spent to promote a Councilmember, but they can be spent on community events sponsored by the Councilmember.

In 2010 only three sitting Council members spent 25% or more of their CSF's on constituent needs (Vince Gray spent 28% on constituent needs before being elected mayor). Conversely, 6 Council members spent more than 60% of their funds on the "other" category. If these numbers were reversed, there still wouldn't be enough CSF money going to needy District residents.

At the end of the day, the amount spent by Councilmembers meeting the daily needs of constituents through these funds ($48,271) is a tiny drop in the bucket relative to the needs of a city in which 30% of children live in poverty. Instead of giving needy constituents crumbs from their table of wealthy donors, Councilmembers should address the root causes of poverty and unemployment that create these needs in the first place.

The campaign finance bills will:

• Set up reporting requirements for transition and inauguration committees, both a source of unreported contributions in the past for mayors and council chairs.
  
• Ban bundling of corporate contributions, to avoid having companies use many subsidiary LLCs to get around contributions limits as Bryan Weaver explained. I've asked for more information on how banning bundling will address this specific problem.
  
• Require any nonprofits that receive constituent service funds to have been around for 1 year, to avoid officials suddenly creating new ones that they control to either pay themselves or use the money as political favors.
  
• Recalibrate reporting deadlines to account for the new, earlier primary date.

Are there other measures that ought to be in ethics legislation? What about Mitch Wander's 3 "quick fixes" proposals?

What we really need is a radical overhaul of the city's culture and conduct to swing the long arc of good government for DC toward the sunlight. We need clear lines of what is permissible and not another layer of bureaucracy. It is time to turn over the Wilson Building and start shaking.

There are three critical areas of reform that if properly legislated, would bring sweeping reform to the city:

Seats on nonprofit boards

Most people see the conflicts raised in the Attorney General's lawsuit accusing Councilmember Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5) of misusing more than $300,000 in city money intended for youth baseball on an SUV and trips.

But what got little press recently was a deal struck by Vincent Orange (D-At Large)—from the dais no less—to vote in favor of a budget amendment if amendment supporters sided with his effort to secure $500,000 for the Lincoln Theater. This maneuver gave the amendment enough votes to clear the Council by a 7-6 vote.

What was not discussed during the deal-making is that Orange serves as the volunteer Treasurer for the nonprofit board that runs the Lincoln Theatre. Orange apologists pointed out that he receives no financial compensation from the theatre or its board and that the deal was done transparently so therefore this was not a conflict of interest. I strongly disagree.

On the same day the Council discussed the proposed ethics legislation, the US Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Nevada ethics law that governs when lawmakers should refrain from voting on official business because they might have a conflict of interest—even when that conflict doesn't create a financial gain for the elected official.

The council needs to adopt rules stipulating that any nonprofit that receives D.C. funds cannot have a member of the Council on its board of directors.

Secondary jobs

DC law allows members of the Council to have outside jobs. Further, District rules require lawmakers to make public their outside income sources only if an employer or client did business with the city or stood to gain from pending legislation during the past calendar year.

By contrast, political appointees in the federal government sign ethics forms that must include all clients or employers who have paid the appointee more than $5,000 during a one-year reporting period—regardless of whether the employer or client did business with the government.

Members of Congress (not the most ethical lot), under their Ethics Reform Act, are prohibited from engaging in professions that provide services involving a fiduciary relationship, including the practice of law and the sale of insurance or real estate.

Ethics analysts like Public Citizen have long said that although D.C. lawmakers appear to comply with the letter of the law, the city's rules don't go far enough. The time has come to restrict outside income in the same scope as members of Congress, or at least create detailed disclosure of all outside income.

Corporate campaign contributions

District campaign finance laws are modeled after federal laws, with one big difference: corporations are allowed to directly contribute to local campaigns. And many companies have found a way to give more than others.

A quick review of campaign records for the mayoral and city council candidates will show you which corporations tilt the scales to gain access to the Wilson Building by electing candidates with their business interests at the forefront.

For example, real estate companies own many properties that are separately incorporated. Each incorporated property may make the maximum contribution to a candidate or constituent services fund. It is illegal for a corporation to use subsidiaries or companies under its control to skirt contribution limits, but at the same time, it's perfectly legal for corporations and their owners to make multiple contributions.

Any ethics legislation approved by the Council must institute limits that bar this sort of corporate contribution bundling. It must also include clear disclosure requirements to inform citizens about potential conflicts of interest and influences.

These are just three areas of concern among many. If, instead of learning ethics from watching movies, the city council is serious about ethics reform, this is where they should begin.

As Albert Einstein said, "Relativity applies to physics, not ethics."