You are here
How a Huge Corporation's Political Spending Can Change a City's Ethics Environment
Tuesday, October 14th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
In the last few years, one of the biggest topics in the general area
of government ethics, including campaign finance, lobbying, and
transparency, has been the effect of huge campaign contributions by
corporations and billionaires, which has become increasingly doable pursuant
to a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
These decisions do not appear to have had as much effect at the local level as at the national and state levels. I did do one blog post a year ago on how local spending by an organization funded primarily by a couple of billionaires backfired. The same post also discusses the old-fashioned problem: local union and business association expenditures.
According to an article that appeared this weekend in the Contra Costa (CA) Times, the oil company Chevron has given nearly $3 million to three "independent" committees that have supported Richmond candidates sympathetic to its local refinery (the city's largest employer) and opposed candidates critical of it, who had filed a suit against Chevron in 2013, related to safety issues. Although presented as coalitions "of labor unions, small businesses, public safety and firefighters associations," the committees have received only a few thousand dollars from the two associations.
Is this sort of massive campaign expenditure ostensibly to protect a financial investment corrupting? If so, in what way?
This is not dark money, because Chevron has contributed this money openly. So transparency is not an issue. In fact, Chevron openly operates a "community-driven news" website that says, "We aim to provide Richmond residents with important information about what's going on in the community, and to provide a voice for Chevron Richmond on civic issues." But according to a column by Michael Hiltik in the Los Angeles Times yesterday, the website makes no mention of Chevron's contributions.
And Chevron has given the impression that many other important players in the community are making contributions to the committee, even though they haven't. How does this role in the election affect these players, as well as other active individuals and groups in the community? It is clear that Chevron is willing to spend huge amounts of money (huge for the community, not for Chevron) to get what it wants.
Anyone who openly opposes the refinery or Chevron's candidates risks the opposition of Chevron and the lack of support of anyone who decides to stay on Chevron's good side. This could very conceivably harm an individual, candidate, business, organization, or even political party's goals (selfish or community-spirited), which likely have little or nothing to to with the refinery. Therefore, must they not seriously consider supporting not only the refinery, but the candidates who favor the refinery, even if they oppose the candidates otherwise?
In other words, Chevron's political spending skews not only elections, but also the decisions people make and the way they approach decision-making in the community. Fear becomes the central emotion in local politics. The city's ethics environment therefore becomes similar to a city where there is a political machine, which people are afraid to openly oppose. Should one company be permitted to put people in this position?
Of course, if Chevron does a poor job, its spending might backfire just like the Koch brothers' did in Coralville, IA. But if it doesn't, its spending will likely change the ethics environment of Richmond. It might be that Chevron is backing the best candidates. But one company, union, or individual should not be the determining factor in a democratic election, especially when that person is not running for office.
If Chevron really wanted to save the day, perhaps it should have sacrificed the services of the refinery's CEO, who could run for mayor, put the city on a better path, and then go back to work for the refinery.
According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, in return for permission to renovate the refinery, Chevron has agreed to spend $90 million over ten years on job training programs, college scholarships and grants to local nonprofit organizations. But this is part of a business deal agreed to with the council, in recognition of the possible pollution and fires that have been harmful to the community in the past.
Spending an inordinate amount of money in an election is not only about economic inequality. It is also about gross political inequality, and it has concrete consequences. It makes Chevron not only the city's largest employer and charitable giver, but also its biggest political speaker, drowning out everyone else's voices and instilling fear in the hearts of anyone who would oppose them or their candidates politically.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
These decisions do not appear to have had as much effect at the local level as at the national and state levels. I did do one blog post a year ago on how local spending by an organization funded primarily by a couple of billionaires backfired. The same post also discusses the old-fashioned problem: local union and business association expenditures.
According to an article that appeared this weekend in the Contra Costa (CA) Times, the oil company Chevron has given nearly $3 million to three "independent" committees that have supported Richmond candidates sympathetic to its local refinery (the city's largest employer) and opposed candidates critical of it, who had filed a suit against Chevron in 2013, related to safety issues. Although presented as coalitions "of labor unions, small businesses, public safety and firefighters associations," the committees have received only a few thousand dollars from the two associations.
Is this sort of massive campaign expenditure ostensibly to protect a financial investment corrupting? If so, in what way?
This is not dark money, because Chevron has contributed this money openly. So transparency is not an issue. In fact, Chevron openly operates a "community-driven news" website that says, "We aim to provide Richmond residents with important information about what's going on in the community, and to provide a voice for Chevron Richmond on civic issues." But according to a column by Michael Hiltik in the Los Angeles Times yesterday, the website makes no mention of Chevron's contributions.
And Chevron has given the impression that many other important players in the community are making contributions to the committee, even though they haven't. How does this role in the election affect these players, as well as other active individuals and groups in the community? It is clear that Chevron is willing to spend huge amounts of money (huge for the community, not for Chevron) to get what it wants.
Anyone who openly opposes the refinery or Chevron's candidates risks the opposition of Chevron and the lack of support of anyone who decides to stay on Chevron's good side. This could very conceivably harm an individual, candidate, business, organization, or even political party's goals (selfish or community-spirited), which likely have little or nothing to to with the refinery. Therefore, must they not seriously consider supporting not only the refinery, but the candidates who favor the refinery, even if they oppose the candidates otherwise?
In other words, Chevron's political spending skews not only elections, but also the decisions people make and the way they approach decision-making in the community. Fear becomes the central emotion in local politics. The city's ethics environment therefore becomes similar to a city where there is a political machine, which people are afraid to openly oppose. Should one company be permitted to put people in this position?
Of course, if Chevron does a poor job, its spending might backfire just like the Koch brothers' did in Coralville, IA. But if it doesn't, its spending will likely change the ethics environment of Richmond. It might be that Chevron is backing the best candidates. But one company, union, or individual should not be the determining factor in a democratic election, especially when that person is not running for office.
If Chevron really wanted to save the day, perhaps it should have sacrificed the services of the refinery's CEO, who could run for mayor, put the city on a better path, and then go back to work for the refinery.
According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, in return for permission to renovate the refinery, Chevron has agreed to spend $90 million over ten years on job training programs, college scholarships and grants to local nonprofit organizations. But this is part of a business deal agreed to with the council, in recognition of the possible pollution and fires that have been harmful to the community in the past.
Spending an inordinate amount of money in an election is not only about economic inequality. It is also about gross political inequality, and it has concrete consequences. It makes Chevron not only the city's largest employer and charitable giver, but also its biggest political speaker, drowning out everyone else's voices and instilling fear in the hearts of anyone who would oppose them or their candidates politically.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
