In the wake of scandals some states and cities have passed “pay-to-play” laws. These laws may prohibit political campaign contributions by those who seek government contracts, prohibit officeholders from voting on laws that will benefit their campaign donors, or the laws may impose special disclosure requirements.
Many people make campaign contributions to candidates whose ideals and goals they share. This is an important part of our political process. But when reading campaign finance reports for members of the Wichita City Council, one sees the same names appearing over and over, often making the maximum allowed contribution to candidates.
And when one looks at the candidates these people contribute to, you notice that often there’s no common thread linking the political goals and ideals of the candidates. Some people contribute equally to liberal and conservative council members. But then, when these people appear in the news after having received money from the Wichita City Council, it snaps into place: These campaign donors are not donating to those whose political ideals they agree with. Instead, they’re donating so they can line their own pockets. These donors are opportunists.
As another example, for the 2008 campaign for a bond issue for USD 259 (Wichita public school district), my analysis found that 72 percent of the contributions, both in-kind and cash, was given by contractors, architects, engineering firms, and others who directly stand to benefit from school construction. Do these companies have an especially keen interest in the education of children? I don’t think so. They are interested in themselves.
Some states and cities have taken steps to reduce this harmful practice. New Jersey is notable for its Local Unit Pay-To-Play Law. The law affects many local units of government and the awarding of contracts having a value of over $17,500, requiring that these contracts be awarded by a “fair and open process,” which basically means a contract process open to bidding.
Cities, too, are passing pay-to-pay laws. Notably, a recently-passed law in Dallas was in response to special treatment for real estate developers — the very issue Wichita is facing now as it prepares to pour millions into the pockets of a small group of favored — and highly subsidized — downtown developers who are generous with campaign contributions to almost all council members. Not that this is new to Wichita, as the city has often done this in the past.
Smaller cities, too, have these laws. A charter provision of the city of Santa Ana, in Orange County, California, states: “A councilmember shall not participate in, nor use his or her official position to influence, a decision of the City Council if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, apart from its effect on the public generally or a significant portion thereof, on a recent major campaign contributor.”
But Kansas has no such law. Certainly Wichita does not, where pay-to-play is seen by many citizens as a way of life.
In Kansas, campaign finance reports are filed by candidates and available to citizens. But many politicians don’t want campaign contributions discussed, at least in public. Recently Wichita Council Member Michael O’Donnell expressed concern over the potential award of a $6 million construction contract without an open bidding process. The contractor the city wanted to give the contract to was Key Construction, a firm that actively makes political contributions to city council members, both conservative and liberal.
For expressing his concern, O’Donnell was roundly criticized by many council members, and especially by Mayor Carl Brewer.
Here’s what’s interesting: Brewer and city council members say the campaign contributions don’t affect their votes. Those who regularly make contributions say they don’t do it to influence the council. Therefore, it seems that there should be no opposition to a pay-to-play law in Wichita — or the entire state — like the one in Santa Ana.
But until we get such a law, I can understand how Wichita city council members don’t want to discuss their campaign contributions from those they’re about to vote to give money to. It’s not about supporting political ideologies — liberal, moderate, or conservative. It’s about opportunists seeking money from government.
The practice stinks. It causes citizens to be cynical of their government and withdraw from participation in civic affairs. It causes government to grow at the expense of taxpayers. Pay-to-play laws can help reverse these trends.
You may download a printable copy of this article at Kansas Needs Pay-to-Play Laws.
There’s no need for the bigger government and more regulations Weeks proposes.
We have elections. Voters support pro-business progressives. The ‘tea party’ candidates were roundly rejected by the wise citizens of our fair city
These laws would not create a larger government, they would regulate government. Which, is a legitimate function of government. I don’t see how anyone could be against laws that increase transparency and reduce the rampant legal corruption that is our current system.
The only word that was accurate in your comment was “progressive”. The council is hardly pro-business, considering the council has voted on multiple occasions to close businesses, only for courts to overturn their rulings.
Is it really pro-business to take money from other businesses and give it to a developer from Tulsa? Is it really pro-business to assess a 6% tax on other businesses in an industry, but rebate 75% of the 6% tax for one special entity?
The entity receiving the special handout will take business from other businesses.
Is it really pro-business to implement special “tax districts” where certain entities are allowed to charge consumers 2% more than their competitors in the guise of a tax?
Is it really pro-business to take money that comes from tax payers to give it to a business located just outside of city limits, that has never paid a dime to our city?
Is it really pro-business to take money from hard working individuals and businesses to give forgivable loans to special businesses so we can show our “commitment” to them and our “appreciation” for them?
The answer to all of my questions: NO!
The state wide elected officials have ethics regulations imposed on them when it comes to receiving meals, entertainment and gifts. It is time that the local politicians come under the same ethical rules.
I say “Off with their heads!” Not only Brewer but Longwell. MIller, Williams…all are guilty of voting in favor of their biggest contributors!!!!
To Anonymous: Guess more people were sipping the tea when the Ambassador Hotel vote was defeated 3 to 1. I’ll have mine with lemon and a little sugar, Sugah!
Look up Johnson and Johnson Corp and Pac donations into the Kansas Legislature and you will understand pretty damn quick why they passed a smoking ban! J&J sell the nicotine patches, and their grant funded lobbying partners at the American Cancer Society, have the Kansas Quitline contract!
They both partner with the CDC, who, last week, was investigated by Sen Collins of Maine, for illegal lobbying activities with grants from the CDC. Kansas is buying the patches from J&J and we, the public, are paying for them, so Kansas can hand them out for free. It does not matter one iota that a Harvard study came out several monthes ago that said this product does not work. J&J campaign donations go to both sides of the aisle, and to elected officials on the City, State, and Federal level. Pat Roberts took $7,000 from them last year. Crum has gotten his share. (He’s the one that blocked the repeal of the ban in adult businesses.)
[…] who contribute heavily to City Council elections. These developers and contractors often have close personal and/or financial ties to the Mayor, City Council members and the City […]