jonetta rose barras: Is DC’s fair elections law unfair to taxpayers?

That seemed the logical question to ask after realizing that more than a quarter million dollars of DC taxpayers’ money already has been spent this election season — although not one of the individuals who has tapped the public’s wallet has met the established criteria for having their names appear on the official ballot.

Election law, as implemented and enforced by the DC Board of Elections (BOE), mandates that individuals running for local office submit nominating petitions with signatures of a requisite number of qualified registered DC voters from a specified political party.

For the June 2, 2020, primary election, such nominating petitions won’t be available until Feb. 10 to individuals running for office. Those petitions must be returned no later than March 4. Only after the BOE has certified the validity of the petition signatures can a candidate be deemed qualified for the ballot. 

Given that criteria, how is it possible that five individuals or their campaign committees — John Fanning, Janeese Lewis George, Jordan Grossman, Patrick Kennedy and Kishan Putta — have collected nearly $371,000 without being deemed qualified for the ballot by the elections board?

Blame DC’s fair elections law. Originally passed in May 2018, the law was modified this spring through emergency legislation in conjunction with funding to implement it for the 2020 elections.

Approved by the DC Council and signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser, the Fair Elections Act requires the Office of Campaign Finance (OCF) to certify for participation in the fair elections program any individual who establishes a campaign committee, disavows large-money donors, and collects small contributions from a specified number of District residents. 

Fair elections proponents promised when the law was initially passed that it would prevent the dominance of big-money donors in local elections. They also claimed it would enhance the ability of more people to compete for office, especially those from communities of color who, public financing proponents argued, have been locked out of the democratic process. 

“We believe people matter more than money,” said George, who is challenging the Ward 4 incumbent, Council member Brandon Todd. She is supported by several members of the same organizational coalition that advocated for passage of the fair elections law. She told me earlier this week during a phone interview that the program is “working well” and has empowered “everyday people who can’t write a check for $100” or make frequent contributions as do contractors and developers.

Putta, one of six Democrats running for the Ward 2 seat long held by Jack Evans, echoed those sentiments, although I reminded him that the council approved a different law designed to reduce the influence of contractors, developers and lobbyists in local elections. “That’s technically true,” he responded, adding that “businesses find ways to get around the law.”

Fair elections proponents and participants like Putta and George may be eager to stick it to business interests. They haven’t made this factual connection: Business owners are taxpayers and contribute to the public coffers being tapped for the fair elections payouts. 

Truth be told, fair elections fans have helped advance a false narrative about the primary beneficiaries of the law and helped create a false dichotomy between individuals receiving public funds and those using more traditional methods to demonstrate public support for their campaign. Equally troubling, the impression has been given, unwittingly perhaps, that individuals approved to participate in the public financing program have been qualified for the ballot in next year’s primary. They have not.

“It’s as if they are all reading from the same hymnal,” said veteran government watchdog Dorothy Brizill, founder of DC Watch. “I was never convinced the argument they were making for the legislation was consistent with the reality.”

Four of the individuals who have been approved to participate in the fair elections program are white men. George is an African American woman. Several individuals who have announced their intentions of running for office, challenging incumbents, haven’t yet requested OCF approval to participate in the program. They appear to be having difficulty reaching the donor threshold established by the law; for example, supporters of Anthony Lorenzo Green, who is running in Ward 7 against Council member Vincent Gray, have been sending out tweets seeking contributions so he can qualify for the fair elections program.

Effective or ineffective propaganda aside, this column is an early warning. There are aspects of the law crying for fixes, not the least of which is whether hard-earned tax dollars should be spent on candidates who haven’t gone through the full qualifying process as defined by the elections board.

“I would love to get the petitions at the same time,” said George, agreeing that there is a cart-before-the-horse factor in the law.

Currently, once individuals have been certified for the program by the OCF, they may receive  “base funding” of between $10,000 and $160,000 (the latter amount is for mayoral hopefuls); those vying for a seat in the legislature can receive $40,000 in two payments. Taxpayers also provide a $5 match for every $1 raised by each fair elections’ program participant.

We are talking real money here. Consider that Grossman has received initial base funding of $20,000. He also has received $99,355.10 in matching funds. That means that as of Oct. 11, he has pulled down a total of $109,355.10, according to documents from DC’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

As of Oct. 11, George has received the second highest payoff: $81,450, according to government documents. Putta received $64,715, Fanning got $52,700, and Kennedy $62,570. The latter two, like Putta and Grossman, are also running against Evans, who has not indicated whether he intends to run for re-election; the council member is under two separate investigations, one by the council for ethics violations and one by the feds for possible criminal wrongdoing.

The spigot isn’t going to be turned off anytime soon. By law, Grossman, George and others may receive matching funds up to $241,000 each. If they actually make it to the ballot, they will pick up the second half of the base funding, which is separate from the matching amounts.

The council has budgeted $2.8 million for public financing for fiscal year 2020, which started Oct. 1. Program costs could balloon to $7.9 million by 2021, according to government projections.

Raise your hands if you can think of a better use of that money.

Interestingly, an early winner in this fair elections taxpayer giveaway has been the DC Democratic State Committee (DSC). According to financial reports filed by candidates with the OCF, three of the five program participants paid the committee $1,500 each for polling/mailing lists. Did I mention that the council is intertwined with the local Democratic Party’s leadership? The former DSC chair, Anita Bonds, is an at-large council member. I’ll just leave that to marinate.

Much has been made about the negative effect of money. However, in local elections it has been a poor predictor of victory. Consider that during the last election, business owner Dionne Reeder, who challenged incumbent Elissa Silverman for her at-large council seat, was defeated despite having more money and the mayor’s support. In the same race, S. Kathryn Allen was poised to get a boatload of money but couldn’t make it through the petition qualifying process. Silverman and Ward 6 Council member Charles Allen each swore off large money donors like those from political action committees. They still managed to win re-election. Those results and that of other elections suggest that victory is determined by the campaign’s organizational and management mastery, the candidate’s message, and his or her ability to connect with voters.

That isn’t sudden reality, however. It was staring the council in the face as it pushed forward with passage of the Fair Elections Act. So, I am not naïve enough to think reminding council members of history will change anything — especially not during this election cycle. However, if legislators are intent on spending taxpayers’ money, the least they can do is modify the law for the next round to ensure that folks collecting the cash have actually made it through the ballot qualifying process and are, in fact, candidates — not wannabes.

Is that too much to ask?

---

jonetta rose barras is an author, a freelance journalist and host of The Barras Report television show. She can be reached at thebarrasreport@gmail.com.