Ethics - Greater Greater Washington

Evans opposes disclosures

Mon, 13 May 2013 08:40:00 EDT

Councilmember Jack Evans (ward 2) wants to delete new rules that force members to file monthly disclosures. Few are in "full compliance" now; David Grosso suggests training could help. (Examiner)

Comment

Board sanctions Orange

Fri, 03 May 2013 08:54:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

DC's ethics board "admonished" Vincent Orange for keeping a campaign contributor's food warehouse open when health officials tried to shut it down. Orange will be able to get the violation expunged later this year. (Examiner)

Comment

McAuliffe backs ethics panel

Wed, 01 May 2013 08:56:00 EDT

by Nick Casey

Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Terry McAuliffe, has called for an independent state ethics panel. The FBI is looking at gifts given to Governor Bob McDonnell. Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican nominee, received gifts from the same donor and opposes an ethics panel or a gift ban. (Post)

Comment

A gift to ethics

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:28:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Virginia is one of the few states left that allow public officials to accept personal gifts of any value. But a company paying for Governor McDonnell's daughter's wedding might make the state reconsider its ethics laws. (Post)

Comment

More power for ethics?

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:37:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

The new DC Board of Ethics and Government Accountability has recommended several changes to DC's ethics laws including criminalizing conflict-of-interest violations, ethics rules for all city employees, and the power to recommend expulsion of council members. (Examiner)

Comment

For DC Council: Elissa Silverman

Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:55:00 EDT

DC voters will choose an at-large member of the DC Council in a special election on April 23. While there has been fairly little coverage of the race or candidates' positions, the choice voters make in this likely low-turnout election will have a major impact on many important issues to District residents. We believe that Elissa Silverman is the best choice.

Image from the candidate's website.

We believe that our leaders should devote much of our city's monetary prosperity to two goals: economic growth that furthers that prosperity, and efforts to truly help those most in financial need to ensure they are not left behind. Ms. Silverman has a very strong track record in this area.

DC has unfortunately had a recent string of elected officials who have instead funneled money to people with connections to those in power in the city government. Their influence ultimately enriches those in power. Ms. Silverman has a clear commitment to reforming government ethics from her work advancing DC's Initiative 70, the recent proposed ballot initiative.

Ms. Silverman embraces transit, mixed-use zoning, and the need especially to safeguard pedestrians now that the city is more walkable every year. She emphasizes the need to encourage more housing units for families as many of the young people who have moved to the District begin families and want to remain in the District's walkable, bikeable and transit-oriented neighborhoods.

Thanks to her journalism background, Ms. Silverman has demonstrated that she can ask very penetrating questions on policy details. When talking with editors about issues such as the zoning update, for instance, she probed much more deeply into the effects and tradeoffs than other candidates or even many advocates.

She has said that she wants to turn this skill toward oversight of District agencies such as DCRA; this would be an invaluable asset to residents who find agencies often papering over inefficiency. She has advocated reforming DCRA to make it easier for District residents to open businesses as well.

Matthew Frumin scored very well on Let's Choose DC, most often slightly ahead of Ms. Silverman and sometimes slightly behind. Mr. Frumin has made very valuable contributions to the District through his civic efforts, such as building coalitions on the Tenleytown ANC. However, we feel he still faces significant challenges to connecting with voters outside of upper Northwest. This will not only be a prerequisite to win but a necessary component to being an at-large councilmember.

Mr. Frumin also has less detailed knowledge of the District government's operations and major policies outside of a few areas of strength such as education. While being an expert is not mandatory for a new council candidate, with Ms. Silverman in the race, her greater expertise is a strong asset. The winner of this race will have to instantly start participating in budget negotiations and then continue to operate on the council while almost immediately running for re-election in the April 2014 primary.

We hope Mr. Frumin will continue participating on the citywide stage in other ways following the campaign, and has strong potential to be a top-tier candidate in a future at-large race once he has built more connections and experience working with neighborhood leaders citywide.

Patrick Mara has garnered some significant support in DC based on his recent races and repeated endorsements from the Washington Post. David Alpert also endorsed Mr. Mara in his previous race (against Michael Brown, who is running again this year). However, he has not shown the depth that one would expect from a repeated candidate, and did not answer several Let's Choose DC questions.

The Washington Post's endorsement last week largely centered around his views on cutting taxes and school reform. We don't disagree with charter schools or school reform by any means, but feel that education in the District needs more analysis into what actually works instead of blind ideology. Mr. Mara has made education a centerpiece of his campaign, but when pressed, hasn't been able to actually put forth compelling insights on the matter.

Michael Brown has a strong commitment to helping the less fortunate, such as his stalwart defense of affordable housing which was very welcome on the council. However, Mr. Brown has repeatedly made clear that he is skeptical of a growing city and is very quick to side with the residents most afraid of change, such as with his response on the DC zoning update at Let's Choose DC or his letter of "concern" almost a year ago.

Mr. Brown was the only candidate to oppose several avenues of ethics reform on that question on Let's Choose. Financial mismanagement problems such as unpaid rent continue to dog Mr. Brown, as did malfeasance by his previous campaign treasurer, even though there has not been any evidence that he himself violated campaign finance laws.

Anita Bonds has not chosen to engage with our community by only responding to one Let's Choose DC question. While we didn't want to prejudge her longtime ties to much of DC's machine power structure, she has not availed herself of opportunities to demonstrate her independence from that machine or policy reasons to support her. She also initially promised to serve as a full-time councilmember, but has since backed off that commitment.

Perry Redd and Paul Zukerberg have valuable perspectives to contribute, and we also agree with Mr. Zukerberg's core message that excessive prosecution of minor drug offenses creates a dangerous environment with too many young people having criminal records at huge expense to taxpayers. We hope both will continue to participate in civic discourse and that the DC Council will take up marijuana decriminalization soon.

Voters considering themselves "urbanists," "progressives," or just "reformers" have seen their votes split in several recent elections, including the last two for at-large council. A number of civic and business leaders have lined up behind Ms. Silverman, including respected top Fenty administration officials like Neil Albert and Victor Reinoso, and we hope that all residents will do the same and elect her to the DC Council on April 23.

This is the official endorsement of Greater Greater Washington, written by one or more contributors. Active regular contributors and editors voted on endorsements, and any endorsement reflects a strong majority or greater in favor of endorsing the candidate.

Disclosures: Elissa Silverman also submitted 4 guest articles to Greater Greater Washington in 2011 and 2012. We had also specifically invited Patrick Mara (after previous campaigns) and Matthew Frumin (before the current campaign) to submit guest posts, in keeping with our general policy of encouraging guest posts from many people active in local affairs. Also, Ken Archer, who serves as Silverman's treasurer, is a Greater Greater Washington editor. He did not vote in the internal poll or write any of this endorsement.

120 comments

Brown bombs on ethics; Silverman edges Frumin

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:02:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Only 2.5% of voters gave Michael Brown positive marks for his response on ethics this week on Let's Choose DC (a partnership of Greater Greater Washington, DCist, and PoPville). Elissa Silverman took the top spot in your judgment, with Matthew Frumin second.

We asked the candidates to give their positions on 6 ethics proposals:

Ban or limit outside employment
Eliminate or constrain constituent service funds
Ban corporate contributions to campaigns
Ban "bundling" from multiple entities controlled by same person
Ban contributions by contractors and/or lobbyists who do business with DC
Forbid free or discounted legal services, travel gifts, sports tickets for councilmembers

Silverman touted her work on Initiative 70 pushing to enshrine the third of these into law. She, Frumin, Patrick Mara, John Settles, and Michael Brown all also endorsed public financing of elections. Paul Zukerberg explicitly opposed it; while we don't know why voters chose as they did, perhaps most of you disagreed and that contributed to his 6th place finish.

Michael Brown, meanwhile, opposed banning outside employment and changes to constituent service funds. He also did not address the proposals involving monetary or in-kind campaign contributions. As a consequence, 47% of you said he did not answer the question while giving him the lowest finish of any candidate on any question thus far on Let's Choose DC.

This week, we're asking about school truancy. See the responses and vote now!

4 comments

Brown in the clear

Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:03:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Michael Brown says he's no longer the subject of a federal investigation on $100,000 missing from a previous campaign. (Post)

Comment

Schwartz to run as a write-in; at-large race gets more interesting (Sep 16, 2008)
Candidates take a stand on ethics proposals (Feb 19, 2013)
Weekend links: The end (Apr 1, 2012)
Ban corporate campaign contributions: Support Initiative 70 (Mar 28, 2012)
For District of Columbia Council (Aug 31, 2010)

Graham slapped for ethics

Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:27:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The DC Council officially reprimanded Jim Graham (Ward 1), with only Marion Barry supporting Graham. The council also took away Graham's alcohol oversight and gave it to Vincent Orange. (DCist)

Comment

Rally questions Barry's leadership in Ward 8 (Dec 30, 2011)
DC officials tweet, but with varying enthusiasm (Jun 24, 2011)
Crowded at-large Council race could help Orange win (Jan 4, 2012)
Tommy Wells gets transportation chair, WMATA Board (Dec 22, 2010)
Real ethics reform goes beyond rearranging the deck chairs (Jun 15, 2011)

Graham under fire

Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:05:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Phil Mendelson wants the council to reprimand Jim Graham for his alleged lottery contract ethics lapses; Graham is suing the ethics board, saying he hasn't gotten a fair hearing. Marion Barry is siding with Graham. (DCist, Post)

Comment

New Council structure announced; Wells joins key committee (Dec 24, 2008)
Klingle Road dead, dead, dead; bike trail alive (Jun 3, 2008)
Tommy Wells gets transportation chair, WMATA Board (Dec 22, 2010)
Create an independent ethics commission for DC Council (Apr 26, 2011)
Rally questions Barry's leadership in Ward 8 (Dec 30, 2011)

Candidates take a stand on ethics proposals

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:58:00 EDT

by David Alpert

We've heard a lot of ideas for rules that will clean up DC's political culture, from the backers of Initiative 70, from multiple DC councilmembers, and from citizen groups like DC for Democracy. What do our at-large candidates think?

Photo by IntangibleArts on Flickr.

This week, Let's Choose DC, a partnership of Greater Greater Washington, DCist, and PoPville, asked the candidates running in the April 23 special election to take a stand on 6 proposals from last year:

Ban or limit outside employment
Eliminate or constrain constituent service funds
Ban corporate contributions to campaigns
Ban "bundling" from multiple entities controlled by the same person
Ban contributions by contractors and/or lobbyists who do business with DC
Forbid free or discounted legal services, travel gifts, sports tickets for councilmembers

We asked the candidates to explain whether they were for or against each proposal, along with any explanation they wished to give and any other proposals besides these 6 which they would push for if elected. Perry Redd, Elissa Silverman, Matthew Frumin, Michael Brown, Paul Zukerberg, John Settles, and Patrick Mara submitted responses. Anita Bonds' campaign manager expressed interest in responding but did not yet submit something.

You can see and rate responses (starting with a randomly-selected candidate) now. Some candidates specifically addressed each of the proposals in their responses, while a few did not appear to specifically take a stand on each as the question asked. When you rate the responses, please factor that in to your rating on whether, or how fully, the candidate answered the question.

12 comments

Not going anywhere

Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:10:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Jim Graham will not resign after the ethics board found that he violated ethics rules. Tommy Wells meanwhile called for an ad hoc committee to further investigate the matter. (Post)

Comment

New Council structure announced; Wells joins key committee (Dec 24, 2008)
Wells concerned about parking in bike lanes (Jun 20, 2008)
Tommy Wells gets transportation chair, WMATA Board (Dec 22, 2010)
Live chat: Tommy Wells, today at 3 pm (Jul 22, 2009)
Join Tommy Wells for reelection kickoff Saturday (Mar 25, 2010)

Not so accountable

Fri, 08 Feb 2013 08:22:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

The Board of Ethics and Government Accountability found that Jim Graham violated ethics rules by intervening in the lottery contract. But it says can't punish Graham for actions before the Board was created. (Post) ... The Post editorial board calls for Graham to resign.

Comment

Draft ethics bill fails to address pressing issues (Nov 21, 2011)
Real ethics reform goes beyond rearranging the deck chairs (Jun 15, 2011)
DC Council ethics: C'mon son, we can do better (Dec 22, 2011)
New bill would create DC transit board (Dec 15, 2009)
Create an independent ethics commission for DC Council (Apr 26, 2011)

Hot for ToT

Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:26:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The Titan of Trinidad blog, which started out as satire, has now broken and doggedly followed 2 big stories, about Vincent Orange personally intervening to stop health officials from shutting down a rodent-infested food wholesaler, and Kathy Henderson allegedly breaking electioneering laws on Election Day.

Comment

Money order ban

Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:36:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Councilmember Mary Cheh looks to ban campaign money order contributions over $25. She proposed a similar ban before, but it got rolled up with a larger ethics reform effort that stalled. (DCist)

Comment

WMATA delays 7000-series order to make it larger (Mar 29, 2010)
Leftover capital money could save Metro service (Apr 14, 2010)

Where the rubber meets the road

Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:34:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

New interim councilmember Anita Bonds is not alone when it comes to outside employment. Though her position with DC's main street paving firm is noteworthy when she is calling for more street paving. (Post)

Comment

Streetcar passes markup, but under consideration for cuts (Dec 3, 2010)
Endorsements for DC citywide races and ballot questions (Oct 26, 2012)
Moran: I know we can't lay more asphalt, but DC should (Aug 25, 2009)
DC Council ethics: C'mon son, we can do better (Dec 22, 2011)
Knocked on our heels, it's time to broaden the urbanist tent (Jul 13, 2011)

WMATA Board ethics

Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:36:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

A review of WMATA Board ethics found that Jim Graham violated ethics rules and made several ethics reform recommendations. But some think more reforms are premature after debating such issues a little over a year ago. (Post)

Comment

Real ethics reform goes beyond rearranging the deck chairs (Jun 15, 2011)
Tommy Wells will introduce ethics reform bills (Jun 20, 2011)
Draft ethics bill fails to address pressing issues (Nov 21, 2011)

Make lobbyists disclose faster

Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:22:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Paid lobbyists at the DC Council only have to report their clients twice a year. That means the public doesn't know until long after issues are settled. Many states require this monthly or even more often. (Sunlight Foundation)

Comment

Data on lobbyists comes too late, is too hard to use (Jul 18, 2012)
DC Council ethics: C'mon son, we can do better (Dec 22, 2011)
Term limits are a dangerous policy (Apr 6, 2011)
Draft ethics bill fails to address pressing issues (Nov 21, 2011)
Real ethics reform goes beyond rearranging the deck chairs (Jun 15, 2011)

Grosso beats Brown

Wed, 07 Nov 2012 08:37:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Among victories for Barack Obama, Tim Kaine, and John Delaney, David Grosso beat Michael Brown for the non-Democratic at-large seat. The race focused primarily on ethics, both Brown's personally and the Council's as a whole. (Post)

Comment

Endorsements for DC citywide races and ballot questions (Oct 26, 2012)
Schwartz to run as a write-in; at-large race gets more interesting (Sep 16, 2008)
Orange win would make DC Council most colorful in history (Apr 25, 2011)
Crowded at-large Council race could help Orange win (Jan 4, 2012)
Congratulations Hans, Vince, Phil, Tommy, Mel and others (Sep 15, 2010)

Endorsements for DC citywide races and ballot questions

Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:20:00 EDT

While the Democratic primary most often determines office-holders in the District of Columbia, there is a serious race on the November ballot for a seat on the DC Council, alongside a number of other races.

Photo by afagen on Flickr.

In the District, we endorse David Grosso for Council at-large, Phil Mendelson for chairman, Nate Bennett-Fleming for shadow representative, and yes votes on the 3 charter amendments.

Greater Greater Washington makes endorsements through a poll of contributors, and we only weigh in when there is a clear consensus for one candidate or position as well as a clear feeling that making an endorsement is worthwhile. The contributors decided not to endorse in ward races, State Board of Education, or shadow senator this year.

Voters will also have the opportunity to choose ANC commissioners, a position which often carries significant influence over neighborhood affairs. There are many great candidates across the city, including Greater Greater Washington editor Jaime Fearer in Trinidad's district 5D07.

DC Council at-large: We recommend voting for David Grosso.

Congress' grant of home rule to the District included a provision that limited how many candidates can be members of the same party, which in practice means that one at-large seat every 2 years goes to one individual who is not formally affiliated with the Democratic Party. We hope voters choose David Grosso over incumbent Michael A. Brown.

More than anything, the DC Council needs stable, ethical leadership at this time. Mr. Grosso has embraced openness and transparency by disclosing any corporate interests that have donated to his campaign. By contrast, whether any laws were broken or not, Mr. Brown's record is marred by a series of personal missteps and questionably ethical political actions.

Michael Brown has been a staunch supporter of many important policies for affordable housing, workforce development and other poverty-related issues. However, when it comes to building healthy and walkable urban places, Mr. Brown simply does not seem to understand the issues beyond a narrow and out-of-date suburban mindset. He pushed for a Redskins training facility on Reservation 13, sent a letter echoing many alarmist and often false fears about the zoning update, wants to spend public money on municipal parking, and more.

Mary Brooks Beatty, the Republican candidate, has proven even worse, voicing the tired "war on cars" theme during a recent debate. After nominating an avowedly pro-urban candidate 4 years ago, it's too bad the DC GOP's standard-bearer is so out of touch with the changing District.

Mr. Grosso, meanwhile, supports better bicycle infrastructure, removing minimum parking requirements, and also wants to shore up funding for affordable housing. Tommy Wells, the DC Council's most ardent voice for smart growth, has thrown his weight behind Grosso, as has the DC chapter of the Sierra Club.

District voters have the opportunity to cast 2 votes. For Mr. Grosso to win, he will have to place in the top 2; most expect that Vincent Orange, the Democratic nominee, will gain the most votes, and that the 2nd will come down to Mr. Grosso or Mr. Brown.

There are also a number of other candidates running, several of whom have promise, such as AJ Cooper, our 2nd highest vote-getter in our contributor poll, but none received a clear consensus required for a formal endorsement. However, voters can certainly use a 2nd vote for one of these other candidates without fear of upsetting their top choice's chances to win.

DC Council chairman: We recommend voting for Phil Mendelson.

Mr. Mendelson is well suited to bring order and credibility to a damaged DC Council. His record of ethics is impeccable, and he is well-positioned to get the council working together collaboratively instead of fracturing into warring factions as it did under former Chairman Kwame Brown.

Some council staffers say that Mr. Mendelson will need to work on shifting his attention to the big picture issues rather than the narrow, often nitpicking hyper-attention to detail he has become known for. He also continues to lean toward sympathy with those who don't want to see the District change or grow much at all. Zoning is not the council's purview, and since becoming chairman he has stayed away from taking a position on such issues that won't come before that body. However, voters need to keep careful watch on this issue.

Shadow representative: We recommend voting for Nate Bennett-Fleming.

The shadow representative is an unpaid position whose purpose is to lobby for District voting rights. Current shadow representative Mike Panetta is not seeking reelection, and we hope District voters will choose Nate Bennett-Fleming.

Mr. Bennett-Fleming brings a youthful energy to District politics. He is able to work and talk with people from all over the city—rich and poor, young and old, black and white, advantaged and disadvantaged. The shadow representative is a relatively thankless position, but it needs someone with the vigor to stir things up and push for equal representation. Mr. Bennett-Fleming's political science background and law degree will also help him know what can work and what can't, instead of pushing for absolutely unworkable ideas.

Ballot questions: We recommend voting FOR all 3 charter amendments.

The proposed charter amendments will officially empower the DC Council to expel a member for gross misconduct, and disqualify any candidates with a felony conviction while in office from serving as councilmember or mayor.

Each of these takes a small step toward improving the laws around ethics in DC. They leave many ethics issues unresolved, and most DC leaders have been reluctant to take the stronger steps necessary to bring more substantial ethical reform to city politics, but these are a step in the right direction.

Update: The original version of the endorsement said that 2 charter amendments disqualify any candidate with a felony conviction from holding office. In fact, they only disqualify candidates who have gotten that felony conviction while in office, which makes the amendments even less meaningful as ethics reforms, but still worth voting for.

These are the official endorsements of Greater Greater Washington, written by one or more contributors. Active contributors and editors discussed endorsements, and any endorsement reflects a strong consensus in favor of endorsing for or against each issue or candidate.

37 comments

Endorsements for Virginia local races and ballot questions (Oct 25, 2012)
Endorsements for Maryland ballot questions (Oct 25, 2012)
For Ward 4 Council: Max Skolnik (Mar 23, 2012)
For District of Columbia Council (Aug 31, 2010)
For Ward 7 Council: Tom Brown (Mar 21, 2012)

Graham vs. WMATA ethics

Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:44:00 EDT

by David Alpert

A report for the WMATA Board found Jim Graham violated their code of conduct by trying to push a decision for developing a Metro property on U Street away from one developer and toward another. (City Paper)

Comment

Wells on ethics

Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:22:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Tommy Wells will introduce more tough ethics reforms. He would end constituent service funds, prohibit councilmembers from holding other jobs, and ban contributions from corporations and lobbyists. (WAMU)

Comment

Tommy Wells will introduce ethics reform bills (Jun 20, 2011)
Cheh, Wells try again to fix snow fines (Jan 4, 2011)
Draft ethics bill fails to address pressing issues (Nov 21, 2011)
DC Council ethics: C'mon son, we can do better (Dec 22, 2011)

On the ethics of bicycling

Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:10:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

When you're a cyclist, breaking the law is sometimes the right thing to do, says the original New York Times' "Ethicist." (Ben Ross)

Comment

Super PACs in DC? The evidence doesn't support the fears

Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:39:00 EDT

by John Durkalski

DC has an opportunity to clean up its elections and restore public trust in District leaders with a ballot initiative, but some are arguing that a ban on corporate contributions to campaigns would just trigger super PACs. The evidence says otherwise. In states that have banned the same practice for decades, super PACs have not played any meaningful role.

Photo by ChristopherSchmitt.com on Flickr.

Ballot Initiative 70 would ban business organizations from contributing to candidates for public office in the District of Columbia, including the widespread practice where multiple LLCs with the same owners make separate contributions. DC voters will have the chance to weigh in this fall if campaigners gather enough signatures in the next few weeks.

After yesterday's Supreme Court ruling striking down a provision in Montana, several people asked whether Initiative 70 could fall as well. But the Montana rule applied to independent political expenditures, not direct contributions, and direct contributions are already illegal in 21 states and in federal campaigns. There's no reason to believe a DC law like Initiative 70 would face any constitutional issues.

Another line of attack holds that banning direct contributions will just push corporations to use super PACs to influence DC elections. Jack Evans, an official with strong fundraising from corporations, has leveled this criticism, and today professional political operative Chuck Thies espoused it as well.

Super PACs are all the rage these days on the federal electoral scene. Corporations use them to channel unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates. But super PACs have not played any substantial role in local or state elections where direct corporate contributions have been illegal for many years. Instead, with the exception of one outlier, they have played no role at all.

A larger and more conservative neighbor, Pennsylvania, has had a statewide ban on corporate contributions for decades, long before Citizens United. This ban covers every state elected official from the governor down to lowliest state representative, but you would be hard pressed to find a single super PAC ~~contribution to~~ expenditure on behalf of any state candidate.

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, another state that has banned corporate contributions since long before Citizens United, you'll find the same thing. Nothing. There is no evidence of a single super PAC ~~contributing to~~ supporting a non-federal candidate.

The list goes on. North Carolina, Michigan, Colorado, and Iowa to name a few. All prohibit corporate contributions, but none have had any super PAC involvement with state candidates.

Wisconsin is the only outlier. There, anti-labor Republican Governor Scott Walker faced an ultimately unsuccessful recall effort in a battle that made—and at times dominated—national headlines as a fight between pro- and anti-worker forces. This highly charged and highly symbolic fight attracted the attention of super PACs.

But to call Wisconsin an outlier is an understatement given the charged and symbolic nature of the recall effort there. It is unlikely in the extreme that such a situation would replicate itself here in DC. The super PAC phenomenon created by Citizens United that has been limited to high-profile federal elections, not state or local contests. Even many, if not most federal candidates never come into contact with super PACs.

Politicians and pundits who cite this issue are doing little more than fear-mongering. Many benefit personally from the current status quo, because they have a fundraising advantage today thanks to corporate contributions or work for candidates who pay their salaries with such money.

These folks are not willing to seek help for their addiction to corporate cash or to help restore public trust in the District. The voters should pay them no heed.

15 comments

Ban corporate campaign contributions: Support Initiative 70 (Mar 28, 2012)
Have you signed the Initiative 70 petition? Pledge today (Jun 15, 2012)
Most sitting councilmembers absent on campaign finance (Mar 7, 2012)
Help clean up DC politics this weekend and this month (May 31, 2012)
Real ethics reform goes beyond rearranging the deck chairs (Jun 15, 2011)

FBI informant runing for Council

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:21:00 EDT

by Thaddeus Bell

Leon Swain Jr., former DC taxi Commission chair and FBI informant, will run for DC Council at-large in November. His cooperation with federal investigators contrasts with the recent charges against councilmembers. (Post)

Comment

A taxi, Leon Swain, and me (Mar 19, 2008)
Taxi rules are too confusing, even for Congressmen (Jul 14, 2010)
DC Dems should appoint a caretaker to Kwame Brown's seat (Nov 14, 2010)
Nonpartisan DC primary would give winners more legitimacy (Apr 19, 2012)
Hold DC's primary in November, not July (Feb 1, 2011)

End entitlement, end tickets

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:39:00 EDT

by David Alpert

A Post editorial suggests eliminating free sports tickets and constituent service "slush funds" to start combating DC councilmembers' "sense of entitlement."

Comment

The DC Council should abolish Constituent Service Funds (Nov 29, 2011)
Free sports tickets show DC politicians' sense of entitlement (Jun 5, 2012)
Evans withdraws ticket plan, blasts criticism (Jun 6, 2012)
Evans still doesn't understand parking limits (Aug 25, 2011)
Three quick fixes to DC Council credibility (Mar 2, 2011)

Entitlement fuels scandals

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:04:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Petula Dvorak says too many DC leaders feel a "sense of entitlement" to perks of office, which sets the stage for scandals like those recently. (Post) ... David used the same phrase earlier this week.

Comment

Brown resigns

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 08:21:00 EDT

by Steven Yates

Kwame Brown resigned from the DC Council after being charged in with bank fraud for lying about his income on loan applications. He will likely plead guilty on Friday. (Post)

Comment

No 2:00 am budget surprises please, Kwame Brown (May 23, 2011)
Brown criticizes GGW but still has no believable explanation (Jul 13, 2011)
Brown and Orange talk parking tickets (Sep 4, 2010)
Schwartz to run as a write-in; at-large race gets more interesting (Sep 16, 2008)
Breaking: Kwame Brown stripping transportation committee from Tommy Wells as retribution for SUV scandal (Jul 12, 2011)

Reactions

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 08:21:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Mayor Gray is "shocked." Rep. Jason Chaffetz says it's "harder" to give DC autonomy with scandals. The police union's head suggests a federal control board. Bob McCartney notes it's not the same as in the Barry days. (DCist, Post, Washingtonian)

Comment

Evans withdraws ticket plan, blasts criticism

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:26:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Thanks to the many of you who sent letters yesterday, Jack Evans decided not to propose his budget amendment to allocate free sports tickets among councilmembers. Evans is also, not surprisingly, displeased that I compared his attitude over tickets to malfeasance from Harry Thomas Jr, Kwame Brown, and Harriette Walters.

Photo by afagen on Flickr.

Primarily, he argues that it was inappropriate to criticize him because he was just proposing to tweak a law that gives the council free tickets, not create a new one.

While it's indeed important to get the legal details as precise as possible in our articles, it's also still wrong for councilmembers to get free tickets. Any law that clarifies who gets which tickets only cements the dangerous attitude that members are entitled to free goodies by virtue of their positions.

As Evans noted, the law already requires half of DC's free tickets at the Verizon Center and ballpark to go to the DC Council, and the other half to the mayor. Evans' amendment would not create a new ticket requirement, but would have spelled out exactly how many tickets go to each member, as well as the parking passes.

Evans is right that my original intro paragraph was imprecise. I wrote that he "wants to enshrine into DC law the current practice that politicians get free sports tickets." He notes that this is already enshrined.

It is indeed important to try to get details right. I should have been more accurate. I was thrown off slightly by the Post headline that said, "D.C. politicians' free tickets could be written into law," but that's not a reason not to get things right as much as possible.

However, this also isn't the point. There is a big difference between a law that says the council gets some tickets, and a law that explicitly divvies them up among members. It also means something to take steps to further codify details of such a scheme into the law. This sends an even stronger message that these tickets are for councilmembers, their guests, or people they choose to reward. It sends the message that these are perks to which members are entitled.

Let's say 3 people come across a lost wallet on the street, and start quarreling over who saw it first and who should get the money. Is the proper response to try to help them agree on a division, or to tell them to mail it back to the person whose driver's license is in the wallet?

What Jack clearly doesn't understand is that most residents view the entire ticket giveaway as dirty. Try to move the piles of dirt around, and you just get dirtier.

Evans is the District's biggest cheerleader for huge public land and money deals for sports teams. He also benefits personally from these deals. As a result of the baseball deal, he now gets free tickets. If he succeeds in wooing the Redskins to the District, he will likely get them too. And so will his colleagues. How can we trust that they're acting in the public's best interest?

Having free parking passes (a current practice that Evans' bill would explicitly continue) also distorts our council's view. DC has made enormous efforts to make the ballpark accessible by transit, and to encourage most baseball fans to use those options. If councilmembers get free parking which most of the public doesn't get, will they recognize the value of funding better transit service?

Small perks can make a huge difference in someone's psychological outlook. Evans has been very clear that he doesn't see a problem with free tickets and parking passes, or having substantial outside income from lobbbying activities, or as he said on the WAMU Politics Hour last Friday, with the District's campaign finance laws. Most residents I've spoken with absolutely do think these are problems, and feel that the Council's ethical compass as a whole is seriously miscalibrated.

21 comments

Free sports tickets show DC politicians' sense of entitlement (Jun 5, 2012)
Evans still doesn't understand parking limits (Aug 25, 2011)
The DC Council should abolish Constituent Service Funds (Nov 29, 2011)
Three quick fixes to DC Council credibility (Mar 2, 2011)
Have DC Councilmembers ever tried to park downtown on a Saturday? (Dec 17, 2008)