CHAPTER 4
Washington is like a strip club. You got people tossing dollars, and people doing the dance.
--Mike Huckabee, former Republican governor of Arkansas
I remember the comment of a well-known big money-raising state delegate from Virginia. He said, ‘Lean to the green,’ … and he wasn’t an environmentalist.
--Leslie Byrne, former Democratic congresswoman from Virginia
FIVE TIPS ON THE ETHICAL WAY TO FUNDRAISE AND PAY FOR YOUR CAMPAIGN
This chapter discusses how to ethically raise money for your campaign while at the same time preserving your independence. We do not endeavor to enter the complex world of campaign finance regulations. Each jurisdiction-large and small has particular rules and regulations that covered everything from contribution limits, reporting, disclosure of donors, and the nature of expenditures. It is essential that you retain a political treasurer and/or attorney who is conversant in these regulations.
Campaigns are expensive. A campaign has to be able to get the candidate’s name and message out to the people, and that takes money. Given our current campaign finance system, unless a candidate is a self-funder, he or she will have to ask others for contributions. Even self-funders sometimes ask for money because the press uses amounts raised by a campaign as an indication of a candidate’s popularity. The old adage, “Money begets money,” was never so true as in political fundraising.
The problem with our current system is that the public generally distrusts candidates who receive money from others, fearing that the mere fact of a political contribution creates a bias in favor of the contributor. 30The fact that a candidate has received a contribution and later takes an official action in favor of the contributor may not be evidence in and of itself of corruption. The public may nevertheless believe that the candidate is in the pocket of the donor.
Most politicians are not corrupt. They are civic-minded people who want to enter public service and enact change for the common good. They are, however, faced with the unenviable dilemma of having to “beg” for campaign contributions before they can help their communities. And because of this, they are vilified before they even begin. How can a candidate navigate the world of campaign finance without being lumped in with the corrupt? An ethical candidate is one who can raise funds while at the same time maintaining his or her independence.
Maintain Independence
Most elected officials do not engage in the type of quid pro quo politics where a candidate or official says to a donor, “If you give me money, I will do X for you personally.” That of course would be illegal extortion. The flip side—when a contributor says, if you do X for me, I will give you campaign funds—is also illegal. That‘s bribery. Although these illegal activities do occur, it’s often in other more subtle and legal ways that money influences policy.31 Accordingly, this is not an area where the law alone should inform actions but rather the candidate’s ethics.
Public officials take on certain ethical duties when they enter public service, including the duty of impartiality. This means they have an ethical responsibility to treat all constituents equally, not just those who donated to their campaign. Ethics requires that a candidate be willing to risk his or her financial relationships, and possibly the ability to get elected, by maintaining independence and by being committed to the people alone—not to moneyed interests.
When a candidate engages in fundraising, the candidate needs to be wary of potential dependencies that the donation will tempt down the line. For example, will the now-elected official feel compelled to give donors more favorable treatment than other citizens out of gratitude for past contributions? Will he or she consider undertaking a legislative course of action, not because it is for the public good, but because it will ensure further support of a particular donor down the road? Will the official change positions to match a contributor’s agenda? When an official has 20 calls to return, whose does the official return first—the constituent with a pressing governmental problem, or a once and potentially future donor? In creating policy for a campaign, do donors have more influence than others on the candidate’s positions?
Officials must be vigilant and honest with themselves when undertaking any official action. It is necessary to engage in a reality check, and ask, why this action? Why now? Is the action in the public’s interest—or does it stem from the official’s dependency on a particular donor? It’s always possible that the public’s interest and the donor’s interest align—but that conclusion should only be reached after honest reflection on the official’s true motivations.
It’s helpful for the public official to have a framework for ethical decision making to rely on before taking any official action, separate and apart from any financial considerations. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics has developed the “Framework for Ethical Decision Making,” which has been used by professionals the world over. By posing a series of questions, the framework provides ethical filters for looking at ethical dilemmas. The framework can be found in full at the end of this book.32
Manage Donor Expectations
Since the common wisdom seems to be that “money talks” in politics, it should not be surprising when donors believe that their money will “speak” to the candidate and successfully sway the candidate toward their point of view. How does the ethical candidate counter this expectation of reward for a donation?
One strategy is for the candidate to be forearmed with clearly articulated positions. The candidate should be prepared with substantive policy statements on the campaign website. The candidate’s positions should be reinforced by consistent messaging in ads, campaign events, statements to the press, responses to debate questions, and answers to candidate questionnaires. Well publicized policy objectives will make it less likely for donors to believe the candidate will change his or her mind because of financial incentives.
Another tactic for managing donor expectations involves the process for asking for contributions. When making solicitations, the campaign must be clear that the only reason a person should contribute is that on balance, the donor supports the candidate’s policy objectives. For those matters yet to be anticipated, explain that the candidate will use best judgment based on experience, knowledge, and values. A general statement on the campaign website regarding the candidate’s philosophy on donations will be helpful in educating donors. In addition, campaigns might consider a friendly disclaimer on campaign solicitation materials that alerts donors to the fact that campaign contributions will not provide greater access or influence.
EXAMPLE:
Dear Friend,
We are grateful to you for your contribution! By contributing you have joined your neighbors and friends who believe that together we can bring about a better future for our children. Your generous contribution will help pay for the campaign-related expenses necessary for our success on election day. Of course, no outcome is guaranteed, nor is greater access or influence promised as a result of a political contribution. What I do promise is to always use my best judgment to take actions that further the common good. Thank you for your belief in me.
Taking steps to send a loud and clear message that a candidate cannot be bought or influenced by contributions will reinforce the candidate’s image as a person of high ethical character and may reduce encounters with unethical contributors.
Disclose Donor Information
Voters are distrustful of anonymous contributors. They want to know to whom a candidate is beholden and who might be trying to exert influence. If a candidate is afraid to be publicly aligned with a particular donor for fear it will hurt his or her chances with the general electorate, the candidate should not be tempted to take the contribution in the first place. This is the reason that election laws universally require disclosure of direct political contributions. Campaigns need to hire a good treasurer, knowledgeable in the political reporting requirements governing the candidate’s chosen office.
The ethical dilemma regarding disclosure arises when donations are not made directly to a candidate, but rather to an independent expenditure committee (I.E.) that indirectly supports the candidate. Some independent expenditures are made by organizations that don’t have to disclose their members.33 It may be difficult for a candidate to know of the existence of an I.E. or the contributors to it. However, the candidate should always be forthright about the need for transparency in campaign finance and encourage disclosure on the part of any group raising money and acting on the candidate’s behalf. We cannot advise strongly enough that campaigns should always seek legal counsel on all of the laws and regulations governing campaign contributions and disclosure requirements.
Refrain from Using Public Resources for Campaigning
An ethical dilemma peculiar to those candidates who already hold office is the temptation to use public resources to help defray campaign costs. Public officials have an ethical duty of loyalty to the public they serve. This means they have to put the public’s interest before their personal political pursuits. Implicit in this ideal is the principle that a public official can’t use taxpayer-funded public resources for political gain. For example, a candidate cannot use government office space, equipment, vehicles, or email accounts for campaign-related activities. Nor should an official use any indicia of office, such as agency letterhead or the agency seal, on campaign materials. Many jurisdictions have restrictions on incumbent mass mailings or other official contact with voters close to an election. Other rules prevent images of uniformed law enforcement in campaign materials or commercials.
Be wary about government staff participation in political campaigns. Government staffers also owe their allegiance to the public that pays their salaries. They too are considered a public resource. They are hired to help all constituents, not just those who support the official’s election. Some may argue, correctly, that staffers have an independent First Amendment right to support their boss’ campaign if they wish. However, they must not be coerced into helping, and they must do so voluntarily on their own time—on their own dime. Because it is so easy for the lines to get blurred, many incumbents have a strong firewall between government and politics, and don’t allow their staff members to participate at all in their campaigns. With a thick wall, there is also no chance that staff will perceive any implied coercion. It only takes one disgruntled government staffer to derail a campaign.
It is also illegal in many jurisdictions to ask staff to contribute to a public official’s campaign. Regardless of legality, candidates should consider whether it is ethical to ask staff to contribute. Will staffers feel an implied threat that if they don’t contribute to their boss they will lose their job? By soliciting campaign funds from staff, does the official send the message that staff loyalties should be to the official first rather than the public that they were hired to serve?
Note too that it would be a misuse of public resources to ask staff to look into a matter that would benefit the campaign. A good rule of thumb, as stated by California’s Institute for Local Government, is, “If you wouldn’t ask staff to look into a matter if you weren’t running for re-election, it isn’t appropriate to ask staff to look into it when you are.”34 The same holds true for using official public meeting time as an opportunity to make a campaign speech. If in doubt as to what is a public resource, make sure that the campaign seeks advice of campaign counsel. An ethics violation complaint for misuse of public resources is the last thing a campaign wants to be known for.
Be a Good Steward of Donated Campaign Funds
When people donate funds to a cause—be it a political campaign or a nonprofit—they expect the funds to be used to further the organization’s mission. In the case of campaign contributions, the expectation is that the funds will be used for legitimate campaign operations to help get the candidate elected. That is why outrage erupts when contributors learn that their donations have been used for personal purposes such as flying the family pet rabbit across the country (the way Republican Duncan Hunter did35) or purchasing Michael Jackson memorabilia (the way Democrat Jesse Jackson, Jr. did36).
When campaign funds are used for the candidate’s personal benefit with the donor’s permission, the appearance is that the funds are a blatant attempt to wield influence. The donation looks more like a gift (or a bribe) rather than a legitimate political contribution.
For these reasons, many jurisdictions have legislated parameters on appropriate campaign spending. For example, in California, the expenditures of state campaign funds are highly regulated and must be “reasonably related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose.” The rules require, among other things, that mileage spent for travel is reimbursable if related to the campaign, but clothing is a personal expense and campaign funds generally cannot be used for attire. A campaign can use funds to purchase office equipment, but if it purchases any vehicles, the title must be held by the campaign committee. A campaign meal that is less than $200 can be reimbursed if “reasonably related” to a campaign activity. If the meal costs more than $200, there must be a direct connection between the meal and the campaign.37 As you can see, these rules are very specific and can get quite complicated. The campaign should always seek legal counsel about the regulations governing its particular jurisdiction.