jonetta rose barras: Ending campaign finance censorship

Opposition appears to be building on the DC Council to the omnibus campaign finance reform legislation approved recently by the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, chaired by Ward 6’s Charles Allen. The pushback has been presented largely as a procedural move, however.

The bill was expected to go before the full council for a vote at today’s legislative session; instead, the bill will only go through the Committee of the Whole. The first legislative vote will be delayed until Nov. 20.

Council Chairman Phil Mendelson told me that the schedule change was mostly because the bill had not arrived in a timely manner. Rule waivers would have been required, which prompted him to ask Allen to wait for the later date.   

Despite that diplomatic explanation, sources familiar with council deliberations told me at least six council members were prepared to “table” the bill. Only one more member would have been needed to send the measure to legislative purgatory.

There is good reason for the dissatisfaction. The Campaign Finance Reform Amendment Act of 2018 is a bad bill.

As approved by Allen’s committee, the legislation is a blatant form of censorship. It muzzles the political voice of various individuals — some of whom own small and local businesses in the private sector and have government contracts — to privilege those of other voters, including those associated with nonprofit organizations and unions.

Equally egregious, the bill suppresses the voices of the family members of those private-sector business leaders. For example, a woman who happens to be married to an owner of a company with a government contract of $250,000 or more would be denied the opportunity to contribute at the current maximum level to a candidate of her choice.

So much for DC being a liberal town, embracing democratic principles.

Concerns about censorship were raised during the council’s public hearings on the bill. Eric Jones, associate director of government affairs for Associated Builders and Contractors of Metro Washington, argued that the reform proposals were “an assault on the corporate citizens of our population.” Further, he said they “prevent corporations doing business with the District from participating in the political process and take away the voice of that constituency.”

Allen ignored those alarms.  

Unprovoked, this council apparently has declared war against businesses. It has instituted policies that stifle growth and prosperity — not the least of which is the overly generous Universal Paid Leave Act, which squeezed DC businesses through the creation of a new tax that would help fund benefits for people who aren’t even residents of the city.

It’s a rob-and-muzzle world for small and local businesses.

The judiciary committee’s report, approved by Allen and others, reads like charging documents in a federal crime. It uses the legislature’s favored whipping corporation, Fort Myer Construction, to suggest that businesses are engaged in politically corrupting activity. Among other things, the committee cites a document prepared by Ward 3 Council member Mary Cheh, released earlier this year in violation of council rules, that argued Mayor Muriel Bowser’s administration was trying to steer a contract to the construction company. However, the DC Office of the Inspector General recently released a report that discredits many assumptions made and promoted by Cheh. (More on this in an upcoming column. Also, in full disclosure, Fort Myer’s charitable foundation provides support to my nonprofit, which works with fatherless girls and women.)

Allen’s committee report also trashes his former colleagues, though not by name. Mendelson told me he asked Allen to “be respectful of council decorum in the language in the report.” The bevy of political scandals in DC between 2010 and 2012 involved the legislative branch — not the executive. Vincent C. Gray had been chairman when his 2010 mayoral election committee allegedly committed campaign finance fraud. Harry Thomas Jr. was a Ward 5 council member when he used a government grant to a nonprofit organization to advantage himself; no private-sector business was involved. At-large member Michael Brown attempted to bribe a small-business owner who alerted the feds.

Advocates from nonprofit organizations like Public Citizen, Jews United for Justice and the DC Fiscal Policy Institute have aggressively lobbied the council for campaign finance reform. They have deliberately used those controversies to misinform the public and foment a distrust between voters and their elected officials.

Their desire for over-aggressive reforms could lead to a legal challenge, forcing the city to spend hundreds of thousands of public dollars to defend the legislation, as the District was compelled to do with its gun-control law. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling against DC in that case adversely affected other jurisdictions in the country.

Mendelson agreed that if the council adopted stronger prohibitions sought by activists rather than taking a more reasoned approach, it could create “more risk that [those] prohibitions would be declared unconstitutional.”

He’s right. In Citizens United v. FEC, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. We have made clear that Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others.”

That case involved independent expenditures. The next ruling could involve general campaign contributions, which, with this court, could result in the total destruction of any ceiling. That pain wouldn’t be felt just in DC; other states also would suffer the sting.

jonetta rose barras is a DC-based freelance writer and host of The Barras Report television show. She can be reached at thebarrasreport@gmail.com.