Campaign Finance & Pay-to-Play

Government ethics is a process issue. Process issues appeal more to, and are better understood by, lawyers. Although corruption may be seen as a substance issue, the ways to prevent it are considered procedural. So at election time, most candidates choose not to talk about ethics reform, at least in any detail. When they raise the issue, it is usually to portray themselves as clean and ethical, and sometimes to portray others as corrupt.

For those of you who are tired of talk about "witch hunts," this quote will be a great relief:

"I'm concerned about a zealous ethics staff chasing down rabbit holes when there is no rabbit."

These are the words of Adam Bonin, a Philadelphia election lawyer, as quoted on WHYY"s News Works website on Sunday.

Intimidation is, I believe, the worst kind of ethical misconduct in government, because (1) it limits or changes participation of people in the democratic process, (2) it is emotionally damaging, and (3) it enables all sorts of ethical misconduct. Intimidation is a fundamental form of misuse of power and position. (For more about intimidation, see the section of my book on this topic.)

A big controversy surrounding the race for mayor of Honolulu is focused on the state's pay-to-play culture of the past, and what pay to play actually is. The reason for this is that a former Hawaii governor is running for mayor, and he is being supported by Bob Watada, a former state Campaign Spending Commission executive director who is known for bringing the state's pay-to-play culture to its knees during his 1994-2005 term in office.

ProPublica ran an excellent article yesterday by Kim Barker and Al Shaw about campaign, PAC, and Super PAC coordination and self-dealing, primarily at the presidential level. What is so special about the article is that it follows the money to where it is being spent. The authors found that many PAC and Super PAC vendors are the same vendors, or different vendors owned by the same people, as the presidential campaigns'.

A good followup to my last blog post, on Lawrence Lessig's book, is what Jack Abramoff said on 60 Minutes this Sunday, pushing his new book Capitol Punishment.

Lawrence Lessig's excellent new book Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It (Twelve, Oct. 5, 2011) is about Congress and mostly about campaign finance, but it is also an important look at institutional corruption that has some valuable things to say that are relevant to local government ethics.

Sometimes, conflicts are built right into ethics laws, partly because it is in the political interest of those with conflicts, and partly because they don't even view those laws as ethics laws.

Reading the Supreme Court majority and dissent opinions in McComish v. Bennett (attached, see below; actually Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett at the Supreme Court level) is a very jarring experience that I highly recommend to anyone interested in government ethics. One opinion presents the world as we know it. The other opinion exists in a different world, a world without action and inaction on the part of legislative officials that can be tied directly to contributions in support of their campaigns.

Good news:  Westminster is not alone. No, I am not referring to the British Parliament or the New York dog show. I am referring to the Westminster, CO law that says that a campaign contributor has a relationship with the recipient of a sizeable campaign contribution that gives rise to a conflict of interest and requires the recipient's withdrawal from participation in any matter involving the contributor (see my blog post on what I call the Westminster Approach).