You are here
Suit Against Contractor Contribution Ban in Albuquerque
Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013
Robert Wechsler
According to a
New Mexico Telegram article, four Albuquerque contractors sued
the city's ethics board, claiming that a 2007 charter provision banning
contributions from contractors violates
their free speech rights.
Here's a link to the contractors' complaint. And here is the provision they are suing on:
According to an article in the Albuquerque Journal, the contractors' request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge. And according to another Journal article, the ethics board narrowly accepted the complaint and scheduled it for hearing.
The contractors make one good point in their suit, that the contribution ban is limited to contractors (and corporations). That is, it does not include others who seek special benefits from the city government, such as grantees, permittees, lobbyists, associations, and unions (this isn't, however, how the contractors phrased this issue).
It is typical for contribution bans to apply only to contractors. That's who people think of when they think of pay to play. But it would be best to include any individuals and entities who can become involved in pay to play, and to make it clear that one of the principal reasons for the ban is to protect them from pay-to-play demands. No response works better than "I can't."
In fact, since the complaint was filed against the incumbent mayor, it could be argued that the suit itself is an example of pay to play. The contractors might have felt obliged to file the suit, and there is certainly an appearance that this is so. The suit is one big campaign contribution.
According to another Telegram article, the council member who drafted the contribution ban rightly argues that the suit should have been filed before the election. It's been six years since the ban was passed. Complaining about it now makes it look like an attempt to change the rules in the midst of an election, and to harm candidates participating in the city's public financing program. To me, this sounds more serious than a few contractors' right to spend money as they choose.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Here's a link to the contractors' complaint. And here is the provision they are suing on:
Charter XIII(4)(f) Ban on Contributions from Business Entities and City Contractors. No candidate shall accept a contribution in support of the candidate's campaign from any corporation, limited liability company, firm, partnership, joint stock company or similar business entity or any agent making a contribution on behalf of such a business entity. No candidate shall accept a contribution in support of the candidate's campaign from any person, other than a City employee, who at the time of the contribution is in a contractual relationship with the City to provide goods or services to the City. The remedy for an unknowing violation of this subsection shall be the return of the contribution.The reason the contractors sued the ethics board (and the clerk, who oversees it) is that another mayoral candidate, who is participating in the city's public campaign financing program, had filed a complaint against the contractors' candidate (the incumbent), who had accepted the contractors' contributions and is not participating in the public campaign financing program.
According to an article in the Albuquerque Journal, the contractors' request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge. And according to another Journal article, the ethics board narrowly accepted the complaint and scheduled it for hearing.
The contractors make one good point in their suit, that the contribution ban is limited to contractors (and corporations). That is, it does not include others who seek special benefits from the city government, such as grantees, permittees, lobbyists, associations, and unions (this isn't, however, how the contractors phrased this issue).
It is typical for contribution bans to apply only to contractors. That's who people think of when they think of pay to play. But it would be best to include any individuals and entities who can become involved in pay to play, and to make it clear that one of the principal reasons for the ban is to protect them from pay-to-play demands. No response works better than "I can't."
In fact, since the complaint was filed against the incumbent mayor, it could be argued that the suit itself is an example of pay to play. The contractors might have felt obliged to file the suit, and there is certainly an appearance that this is so. The suit is one big campaign contribution.
According to another Telegram article, the council member who drafted the contribution ban rightly argues that the suit should have been filed before the election. It's been six years since the ban was passed. Complaining about it now makes it look like an attempt to change the rules in the midst of an election, and to harm candidates participating in the city's public financing program. To me, this sounds more serious than a few contractors' right to spend money as they choose.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments