Paying Relatives to Work on Council Campaigns - Issues of Trust

Once again, the New York Times has an article today that touches on municipal ethics issues. A municipal scandal does wonders.

This time the issue is campaigns hiring relatives of city council candidates. It happens all the time, and it’s not illegal (in New York City and most of the country), but as Susan Lerner, the executive director of New York Common Cause, is quoted as saying, “It’s the type of thing which makes ordinary voters suspicious of the motives of candidates. It’s the sort of thing that makes ordinary voters dislike politicians.”

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

Trust is an element on both sides of the equation. Candidates want treasurers and advisers they can trust, and many feel their family members are more trustworthy than others. But often relatives volunteer their time (in New York City, according to the article, however, this can be considered an in-kind contribution; but I don’t think this is generally true).

Citizens want politicians they can trust, and whenever relatives are involved — especially when the public is partially funding campaigns, as happens in New York City — there is at least an appearance of a conflict of interest, and at most the fact of putting public money into the family’s pocket.

Would people contribute money, knowing that a substantial portion of it was going to relatives? This raises a disclosure issue. I think that this information should be requested from campaign committees, and made easily available, so that potential contributors and the local press know.

No one objects to including relatives in a political campaign. But there are reasonable objections to paying them, even if it’s a fair market price.

There doesn’t appear to be the usual question of whether a relative is the best person for the job, because a campaign isn’t providing services to the public. Or is it? Members of the public fund campaigns, and campaigns are an important part of city politics. They are, or should be, a source of debate about issues facing the city, and they send messages about what citizens can expect from their representatives.

A candidate who appears to favor relatives, especially when unopposed or not seriously opposed, is sending a message that conflicts of interest aren’t something that bother the politician. There is no reason to believe that someone who ignores conflicts in campaigns will be an ethical city official.

In short, unless there’s a clear and compelling reason to pay relatives, and they are highly skilled for the particular job, candidates should ask relatives to volunteer their services or hire non-relatives.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics