Council set to take second vote Tuesday on amended version of campaign finance reform bill

The DC Council is moving toward passage of a major omnibus campaign finance reform bill, with a final vote scheduled this week after an initial OK in November. If approved, the legislation would overhaul campaign fundraising in a city long associated with a pay-to-play culture.

DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson said at a press briefing Monday morning that he expects legislators to offer several proposed amendments at Tuesday’s meeting, including one that would alter the restrictions on contributions by contractors and another affecting whether candidates would be held personally liable for debts of campaign committees in certain instances.

The bill’s author — Ward 6 council member Charles Allen, chair of the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety — plans to propose an updated version of the bill as an “amendment in the nature of a substitute,” according to a spokesperson. The package will allow candidates “to retire the debts of their principal campaign committees without personal liability” within 12 months of the election, rather than the previously proposed six months; it will also specify that personal liability kicks in only after the new Campaign Finance Board completes its audit of the campaign committee.

Other changes in the Allen amendment include a clarification that “covered contractors” subject to the contribution restrictions can donate to their own elections, as well as a requirement that the Office of Contracting and Procurement issue rules implementing the pay-to-play provisions.

Proponents say the Campaign Finance Reform Amendment Act of 2018 would help restore public confidence in the city’s political process through a number of policy changes. It combines the goals of four campaign finance reform bills that had been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety over the past two years. Critics, meanwhile, express frustration over rhetoric that suggests the bill is a cure for past corruption that they say is largely unrelated to campaign donations.

First introduced in 2017 by Allen and at-large colleagues David Grosso and Anita Bonds, the bill won initial approval during the council’s Nov. 20 legislative meeting with the support of all but two of the 13 members. Ward 4’s Brandon Todd and Ward 5’s Kenyan McDuffie voted “present,” meaning they voted neither for nor against the legislation.

During debate, Allen stressed that he expected to continue honing the measure in consultation with other council members prior to the required second vote on the bill, which is on Tuesday’s non-consent agenda. It’s one of 100 or so measures slated for consideration.

Highlights from the 301-page committee report on the campaign finance bill include provisions to prevent government contractors from making campaign contributions — a practice critiqued as a “pay-to-play” culture that generally helps entrenched incumbents. The restrictions would apply to firms and their top executives if they hold or are seeking government contracts worth at least $200,000. The report notes that this would cover any enterprise, franchise, association, organization, nonprofit corporation, or other legal entity through which business is conducted, whether for profit or not.

The bill would also create a new board to oversee the Office of Campaign Finance, which currently operates under the auspices of the Board of Elections. Other key provisions in the legislation would ban the bundling of campaign contributions by lobbyists and require independent expenditure committees to list their top five donors on their political advertisements.

Opening the debate during the Nov. 20 legislative meeting, Allen said that he hoped his colleagues would not support an attempt to table the bill, though no one ended up attempting to do so. Allen stressed the District would be far from the first jurisdiction to implement pay-to-play reforms.

“At least 17 states, the federal government and numerous cities across the country including New York City and Los Angeles have implemented restrictions,” Allen said. States with pay-to-play prohibitions include nearby Maryland and New Jersey, as well as California and Texas.

At-large council member Elissa Silverman said the proposed legislation — when paired with the District’s recently adopted system of public financing — would help ensure that campaigns in DC are fueled by resident interests and would limit the influence of money “as a corrupting influence” on local politics. She used her most recent re-election campaign as an example, alluding to the financial support two of her opponents received from the business community. After S. Kathryn Allen was removed from the ballot due to insufficient valid signatures on her campaign petitions, donations began flowing to Dionne Reeder, particularly after she won Mayor Muriel Bowser’s full-throated endorsement.

“Just look at the fundraising in my recent council race,” Silverman said. “Big-money special interests filled not just one, but two candidates. One contributor to my opponent said he felt like he had a gun put to his head — if he didn’t give, it would be held against him.”

Grosso also expressed strong support for the bill, as did at-large colleague Robert White.

“It is my hope that in four years we won’t recognize our election system,” Grosso said.

White described the prohibition on contractor contributions as providing “safe harbor” for business owners and entrepreneurs who would prefer not to donate to current officeholders. “I don’t believe contractors want to be pushed around,” he said.

Mendelson struck a much different tone during the debate. Though he said he had decided to vote for the bill despite some concerns, the chairman cautioned council members that passing Allen’s legislation is unlikely to end complaints about campaign contributors having undue influence over the political process. Representative government is all about seeking influence on policy decisions, he said, whether that comes via paid lobbying, campaign contributions, civic letter-writing campaigns, informal contact or myriad other mechanisms, he said.

“What I learned early on in being on the council, with regard to campaign finance, is that the most important tenet is disclosure,” Mendelson said. “When actions are taken that limit disclosure, the money becomes more difficult to track.”

Critics of the bill’s approach contend that the restrictions will foster growth of independent expenditures on behalf of favored candidates, without the benefit of the disclosure requirements or limits on the amount of spending that are now in place.

“People will find a way,” Mendelson said. The unintended consequence of some attempts at regulating contributions is making the cash “harder to trace” as it goes further underground, he added.

Mendelson also advised Allen to utilize a second reading to address concerns that had been expressed by council members in the lead-up to the debate. For example, he encouraged Allen to better define the “senior officials” of contracting firms who would be covered under the prohibition on campaign contributions. Business leaders have urged a change to make clear that employees who don’t have any role in contract solicitation are exempt from the restrictions.

“I don’t know what that is,” Mendelson said of the current reference to “senior officials” in the bill. “Sometimes people want to make a contribution, and they can’t, so they have their wife, their brother, make the contribution, which makes it harder to track the money.”

Mendelson ended his commentary by reflecting on past District scandals, such as when former council member Michael A. Brown was sentenced to three years in federal prison for accepting tens of thousands of dollars in bribes. But Brown’s offenses — and those of other legislators accused of wrongdoing — did not involve campaign fundraising or the contracting process governed by the current bill, Mendelson noted. The bill’s critics have similarly warned that it does not address the problems that have arisen in DC, describing the claims of some proponents that it does as potentially sowing distrust of elected officials after years spent recovering from the scandals of yesteryear.

“It’s precious to rebuild that credibility and rebuild that trust,” Mendelson said. “It’s easy to lose and hard to gain, and it’s important to retain it.”

Additional reservations about the bill came from McDuffie and Todd during the Nov. 20 deliberations.

“What concerns me most is [that] this bill will create traps for people to fall into,” McDuffie said, describing himself as a strong proponent of efforts to increase transparency. “People are able to see through the tactics that [lobbyists] employ. I’ve got faith in the residents of the District of Columbia to see through some of those tactics. Some of what’s in here is actually going to complicate this system.”

Todd said that disenfranchising some people is a misguided approach that will not attack the real problem. “We can’t legislate out of existence unscrupulous people,” he said.

Todd also took exception to the assertion that contributors gain access because of their donations. “Everyone gets access whether you’ve donated to my campaign or not,” he said.

If the council gives final approval to the bill, it will go to Mayor Muriel Bowser for her signature or veto. The legislation would also have to pass congressional review to take effect.