Dealing Responsibly with Contributions from Individuals Convicted of Crimes

What responsibility does a candidate have to check on those who make contributions to his or her campaign? Is there a greater responsibility when the candidate is running for a law enforcement position, from sheriff to D.A. to judge?

These questions were raised with respect to a situation in Dallas County, where the sheriff accepted large contributions from two convicted felons, according to an article in Sunday's Dallas Morning News.

The principal question posed in the article is whether the sheriff should have checked the backgrounds of large contributors. The executive director of the Sheriff's Association of Texas told the Morning News that "no state or federal laws restrict a sheriff from using in-house databases to run criminal background checks on people who associate with the department ... He said his department routinely runs criminal background checks on people visiting inmates in the jail."

But the Dallas County sheriff told the paper that she didn't "believe it would have been appropriate to use her office's resources to check their criminal histories ... she can use only state and federal criminal justice databases for ongoing criminal investigations and hiring purposes."

The article then says, "the county has a public access website where anyone can look up criminal case information."

There are multiple issues here. Is it appropriate for a law enforcement official to use special resources to check up on candidates? Does a law enforcement official have a responsibility to make such resources accessible to all candidates for the position? If the resources are public or are made available to all candidates, is there a responsibility to use them so that there is no appearance of having taken money from past and potentially future criminals?

For law enforcement candidates, I think there is both a responsibility to make resources accessible to candidates and to do a quick background check.

But then what? The factors to consider in whether to return a contribution should include:

1. How long ago was the last arrest?
2. How many arrests and convictions have there been?
3. How serious have the crimes been?
4. Was the candidate or the position involved in any way, and is there any possibility the candidate could be seen to have helped the contributor?
5. Has there been any other sort of relationship with the contributor?
6. How large is the aggregate contribution?

In the Dallas County matter, there were two large contributors to the sheriff's campaign who had criminal records. One had a long history of theft convictions, including recent arrests and convictions. He also helped handle the sheriff's Christmas toy drives in 2007 and 2008. He also was involved in a dispute with county deputies doing security work for him on the side. There is no doubt that his contribution should have been returned.

The other gave the sheriff a large corporate contribution, which was returned for other reasons, and then $3,000 personally. The sheriff socialized with him on at least two occasions, including dinner at his home. He was recently involved in an oil-and-gas fraud, and has fourteen prior criminal convictions. His last prison term ended a year before he made the contributions. There is no doubt that his contribution should have been returned.

But someone with a couple of drug convictions years ago who gives $25 is no problem. A fifth theft arrest months before and a $500 contribution could be problematic.

When you're running for a law enforcement position, especially when you're an incumbent, I believe it's best for yourself and the public to check the criminal backgrounds of those who give you large contributions, say over $300, and to give all other candidates equal access to the resources available to you. You should state this publicly, so that people with serious and/or recent criminal records are less likely to give in the first place, and so that the public knows that you cannot be bought by people whom you might deal or have dealt with professionally. You could also include in your press release the factors you will consider in determining whether to accept a contribution. The more information up front, the better it will be for everyone. And when in doubt, return the contribution.

If you're not running for a law enforcement position, it is far less likely that there would be a possible conflict or appearance of impropriety. It's more a matter of whether you want to be seen as accepting contributions from individuals who have been convicted of crimes. This is a personal matter, and I don't think that any closed resources should be opened to these candidates.

It is important to set a minimum contribution amount, because it would be wrong to prevent people with criminal records from making campaign contributions. But there is no reason why candidates for any position need be tarred by large contributions from recently convicted felons. I don't think there would be a constitutional problem, at least for law enforcement officials, to refuse to take contributions from anyone convicted of a crime within a reasonable period of time before the contribution. But I think it's better to use reasonable factors than to make a blanket refusal.

As for laws, I don't know of any that deal directly with this issue, and I don't know that there's a need for one. The best thing is to cover the issue in ethics or campaign finance training classes for candidates and, if the matter arises, candidates cannot say they never considered the issue or that they didn't believe it is right to do background checks. If they know they can't wiggle out of it later, they may actually deal with the issue responsibly before the campaign begins. This is another way that ethics training can be useful to everyone.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---