The law on limiting campaign expenditures has been changing over the past couple of years. But the law on limiting campaign contributions has not. The standard in many instances is more liberal than with campaign expenditures, in others it is the same. And the application of the standard is highly contextual. A law in one jurisdiction, or at a particular time, might be constitutional, while in another jurisdiction, or at a different time, it is not.

Contribution limits are an important part of government ethics, because contributions from those doing business with local governments, often called "legal bribery," are a major source of the belief people have that government officials can be bought. Removing this appearance of impropriety is a principal goal of public campaign financing programs.

The state of the law on limiting and banning campaign contributions from, and their solicitation by, restricted sources, including contractors and lobbyists, as well as their principals and immediate family members, is well summarized in the Second Circuit's decision in Green Party v. Garfield (July 13, 2010).

Gifts from restricted sources, that is, from those doing business with the local government (and their lobbyists), are exceptionally damaging, in that they make the public believe their officials can be bought or that their officials are running a pay-to-play government. It's too bad that at least some members of the Los Angeles ethics commission don't recognize this.

The usual image we get when we hear about a government official getting something free from a contractor is of a new kitchen or driveway. But free services can also be invisible, like legal advice and other professional service.

It's important not to have pension board members with serious conflicts of interest, such as a personal interest in the board's investments, or acting as providers of investment products (see my blog post on California reforms prohibiting such conflicts).

But it is equally important for a pension board not to work with others who have conflicts. This issue has arisen with respect to the Denver board of education's catastrophic decision to get involved in a complex investment vehicle — pension certificates with a derivative attached — according to an article in yesterday's New York Times.

There is no greater pleasure for some people than accusing ethics professionals and ethics commission members of unethical behavior. That is why ethics professionals and ethics commission members have to be extra careful about what they do, and why individuals who have not dealt responsibly with conflicts of interest, at least in the recent past, should not accept a nomination to an ethics commission.

What no one wants to read is what is being written about the current chair of the Florida Commission on Ethics, which has jurisdiction over local government officials and employees. This week, New Times blogger Bob Norman wrote that the EC chair, appointed in 2007, had no-bid work orders from the then Broward assistant school superintendent from 2004-2006 totaling $75,000, marked with "bid waiver," although there was allegedly no formal approval from the school board.

A Poor Approach to Being Ethical
It's great when candidates talk up acting ethically. But it's going too far, and setting a bad precedent, when a candidate takes a lie-detector test in which he says that he never engaged in unethical activities in private- or public-sector work, as reported in the Moultrie (GA) Observer.