Great Expectations

What's your opinion on public financing of campaigns? The story says both Nutter and Taubenberger aren't fans. Seems like a way to keep things above board.

What do you think of Councilman Rizzo's recent ethics reform proposal?

The story says the reform is far from completed, and the writer uses the examples of "outlawing nepotism, disclosing lobbyists' expenses, and banning gifts to city officials" as problem areas. Are those the areas that ought to be addressed first going forward, or do you have additional suggestions?

My personal view on public financing, which also has been the view of the editorial board, is that public financing is a necessary reform.

It's complicated to explain, but "pay to play" is actually a subterranean form of public financing, one that uses tax dollars to finance campaigns in a sub rosa way that leaves pols beholden to city contractors, rather than taxpayers.

Here's what I mean: Firm x gives candidate y a check for his campaign. Once candidate y becomes mayor y, he throws a no-bid professional services contract to Firm x. Firm x just factors the cost of the political donation into the costs of the no-bid contract; so essentially the candidate refunds the donation to the firm after the fact, using taxpayer dollars.

It's a great deal for everyone but the taxpayer.

My belief is that the upfront cost of using tax dollars for public financing of campaigns, while very visible, would in the long run be just a fraction of the true but hidden cost of the pay to play system of subterranean public financing.

Also, public financing makes it much more likely that you will get decent opposition candidates to run against inept, arrogant or corrupt incumbents.

To react to the two other comments, yes, I think we're saying those dealing with those issues - lobbyists, nepotism, and gifts - is part of the basic playbook of governmental reformers across the land, and should be done here.
That doesn't mean real reforms will be easy to get done. In the clubby, inbred world of city politics, the very suggestion that there is something off about hiring a relative is treated as something shocking. Providing for family seems to be one of the main motive forces for some people to be in politics. Resistance to this bit of basic blocking and tackling of reform will be fierce.
"Why should my son/wife/cousin/niece - a smart, eminently qualified person _ be denied a chance to work simply because I'm in public service?"
That's what you hear, repeatedly.
My response: "We're not denying them a chance to work. We're saying they can't work in one place, city hall. If they're so blinking qualified, surely they can find a job somewhere other than the place where you hold the pursestrings."
The devil is often in the details on reform bills, and I haven't given Councilman Rizzo's bills that kind of attention yet, but they seem to be largely on the right track.
Chris Satullo

Nepotism is studiously avoided on Capitol Hill, because of a long history of law, policy, and court cases about it.

But we also need to disclose not just contracts or bids submitted by the family or company of a contributor.

Remember that the city gave away property for peanuts and from the RDA and other agencies.

The law has to read "any recipient of contracts, property held by or controlled by any city agency in whole or part must disclose whether individual, family, partnership, corporation or any legal entity whether for profit or nonprofit must disclose all financial and nonfinancial contributions to candidates at the time of the contribution," or fine them and use it to fund the Ethics Board.

And, "Any entity may not contribute to a candidate or party as an individual or corporate entity whether for profit or nonprofit unless property taxes, and all liens to the city or city agencies are paid in full," or fine them like $10,000 and give the money to fund the Board of Ethics.

Nepotism: fine of $10,000 per incident and give proceeds to fund to Board of Ethics.

City Employees: may not give contributions or work on campaigns, or volunteer for elections. Must have all property taxes and liens to the city or city agency paid in full.

Recipients of city subsidies: no resident or beneficiary of any publicly funded program may donate to campaigns. So PHA, people who get RDA, PAID, PCID, etc. properties can't contribute money to party or pols.

PACS: can't get contracts, property, or city subsidies or else fine them $10,000 per incident, give it to the Board of Ethics.

State and federal campaign finance reform is a good guide, especially because a lot of this stuff is available online. Common Cause has stuff online about contributors.

There's no reason the city can't do this, but have a showpiece in the nation for campaign finance and ethics reform.

To react to the two other comments, yes, I think we're saying those dealing with those issues - lobbyists, nepotism, and gifts - is part of the basic playbook of governmental reformers across the land, and should be done here.
That doesn't mean real reforms will be easy to get done. In the clubby, inbred world of city politics, the very suggestion that there is something off about hiring a relative is treated as something shocking. Providing for family seems to be one of the main motive forces for some people to be in politics. Resistance to this bit of basic blocking and tackling of reform will be fierce.
"Why should my son/wife/cousin/niece - a smart, eminently qualified person _ be denied a chance to work simply because I'm in public service?"
That's what you hear, repeatedly.
My response: "We're not denying them a chance to work. We're saying they can't work in one place, city hall. If they're so blinking qualified, surely they can find a job somewhere other than the place where you hold the pursestrings."
The devil is often in the details on reform bills, and I haven't given Councilman Rizzo's bills that kind of attention yet, but they seem to be largely on the right track.
Chris Satullo