City Hall Diary
From my experience in running for elected office, one of the difficult hurdles was raising money. Now I don’t have a problem “asking” for money per se. However, the difficulty for me was “who” I should take money from and who I shouldn’t. Who I take money from during an election can equate to access and/or even the perception of personal favors later when in elected office.
Traditionally, you have a few places you can go to raise money. One is the labor unions, who have a big stake in government since their business model relies on their dues-paying membership expanding. Another is the lobbyist community that wants to have as much access as possible to elected officials, since a large part of the value for their clients is relationships. Yet another place to raise money for local government is from housing developers, since cities decide how to zone a parcel of land and what will be built on it.
For me, I concentrated on raising money from friends and family first, then others second, including calling friends from grade school is an excuse to connect.
However, raising money only starts when you are campaigning. It does not end once the campaign (election) is over; the raising of money continues. Once you are in office, elected officials are allowed to have a “friends account.” A friends account allows elected officials to solicit donations year-round to pay for things they want in addition to their office budgets, or to use on things they are not allowed to pay for from an office budget. I never set up a friends account because I did not want to be beholden to anyone or start campaigning for the next office. I believe once the election is over, so is raising money. The city council voted wisely in early in 2008 when they banned these accounts. (See my column from June 4, 2007.)
Elected officials are asked to raise money for other candidates, ballot measures and charities while in office. All three of these can be worthy of raising money for, especially charities and/or notable causes like raising money for the Library Foundation or our local schools, among others. Each is great on its own merits and provides valuable service to the community.
I have been asked by many groups and even some individuals to raise money for very good causes. However, once “I” as the elected councilmember begin asking developers and others for money for “my special cause,” then I set myself and those I represent up for having to “pay back” the one who donated at some future date. The elected official might be an effective fundraiser, but at what price to their independence?
Often residents curse developers one day, but are happy to take their money the next day for their cause.
As a result, I do not have a friends account, nor do I raise money for “pet projects.” Sometimes I think my stance might be too harsh. For example, I would love to raise money for schools in my district. However, I believe keeping myself free from influence as best I can is best for everyone. Better to be too cautious then not cautious enough.
I have heard the line before that a politician should be able to take money and be impervious to influence from the donor. Yet, when I look at the reality of politics in this country, I don’t believe that is true.
Pier,
Ask yourself “how much does it take to buy me.” Then limit yourself to one dollar under that amount.
It’s like the old joke. A man asks a woman if she would sleep with him for $1 million. The woman says yes. Then he says, how about for $50. The woman insulted asks, what kind of person do you think I am.
The man responds; we’ve already determined that, now we are just negotiating price.
The fact is you shouldn’t be able to buy anyone for one dollar or a million dollars. Integrity should not be for sale.
Unfortunately it often is for sale because politicians succumb to the mindset of their masters (the voters) who believe all politicians are criminals.
So we set artificial limits on campaign contributions thus protecting ourselves from the million dollar whores and accepting the $500 variety.
It’s a crazy world. Of course, political people will always tie you to your contributions and accuse you of selling out if you do not agree with them. You can’t have a different opinion than people emotionally involved with an issue and still be honest. So therefore you must be corrupt when you vote against them.
I long ago advised my clients to accept money from almost anybody and promise nothing. People who don’t agree with you are not going to give you money. If someone gives you money and you vote against them—good for you. Likewise, if they give you money and their cause is right—vote for them.
The key is to separate the money issue and the political issues before the City Council.
If you can’t do that, get out now.
P.S. I once had a very ethical candidate who refused to take “developer” money. I asked her, “If you don’t take developer money—does that mean the people who do give you money have bought you?”
In the final analysis, the fear is perception, not reality. Be real.
Pier,
As a father of kids in WG Middle and High School, I’d suggest that you give school fund raising a chance. You’ve proven yourself to be perhaps the most independent voice on the council so I don’t think that raising money for our schools will corrupt you.
#1 Rich—
While I 100% agree with you that integrity “shouldn’t” be for sale, that is no basis for Government.
Communism and other forms of ‘enlightened’ Government rely on the integrity of the oligarchs. In a democracy, you assume power corrupts and you try to limit the damage thereof.
The assumption that politicians are all crooked is one of the best things about our system—not the worst.
The more fundraising you do the more baggage you carry. Where would you draw the line? Each charitable cause is worthy. Just continue to do your job and not solicit money year round.
Is it chance or something else?
San Jose Council raises most of campaign money from developers and those who benefit from more development
General Plan and development policies are regional joke and hardly ever followed especially for large politically connected developers who get amendments, conversions, zoning changes, less setbacks, credits, and high profits – while whining ” my project doesn’t pencil out ( to 40-50% profits ) so I need more density, credits or tax subsidies ” and Council gives it to them month after month as budget deficit gets worse, San Jose has less jobs and tax revenues
San Jose converted 1400 acres from commercial to housing since 2000 while other cites gained jobs we gained housing for other city’s jobs
Housing does not pay for city services required. San Jose continues to build more housing and have more budget deficits.
Developers were given $70 million in reduced park impact fees and no low income housing requirements for downtown high rises and now city want to have inclusionary low income housing throughout all San Jose so everyone buying house gets to pay higher house costs to pay for low income housing
Look at list of former Council members, Department heads, campaign workers and Council staff working for developers until next election of pro development candidates
Developers give the most money because they have the most interest in access to City Councilmembers.
In Judge’s and District Attorney campaigns, lawyers are the biggest givers. Are all the Judges on the take?
In the Insurance Commissioner race the main givers are Insurance Companies (unless the candidate eschews the money and spends his or her own).
The simple fact of the matter is not that many people give to political campaigns. Only friends of the candidate and those who have an interest. Thus the nexus between decisions and support.
But people oppose public financing of campaigns and you can’t compete without money. So the candidates go to the well.
This does not make them corrupt. But in our society we believe that nobody gives something for nothing—there lies the rub.
The developers buy good will and easy access. The canidate feels pressure to support their new friends and the public is quick to believe that candidates have no integrity.
The sad fact is that some don’t—but some do.
My point is that fundraising alone does not make a person unethical—nor is the appearance of funds raised and votes cast a necessary measure of integrity. A person’s integrity should be developed long before they enter politics.
Though, admittedly, it is tested everyday in the arena.
#2
WG Dad,
Thanks for your comment and thanks for choosing your local public school.
I do attend nearly every event/fundraiser for public schools in my district. In addition each council office has $10,000 a year to give as grants to community organizations funded from naming rights of the Arena. The majority of my grant money goes towards public school and foundations that support schools like the Lincoln Foundation and Willow Glen Foundation.
See you at the WG Foundation Wine Tasting event Nov 2 and the Crab Feed Jan 31.
If we always elect people based on the amount of money they’ve raised, no matter where that money came from, then we the people deserve whatever we get.
But.
Aren’t members of the City Council elected by the CITIZENS of the various districts? And isn’t the idea that these elected individuals represent the interests of those citizens?
Other special interest groups have the time and money to send representatives, whether they be payed spokesmen, professional lobbyists, lawyers, union officials, or public relations firms. These special interests already HAVE adequate representation. We the people have only our council reps. It is the job of our council representatives to figure out what’s best for their constituents even though those constituents are not actively making their voices heard. Pierluigi is the only one who actively seeks to discover what the PEOPLE think. The rest of them are content to go along with the wishes of the loudest lobbying group on any given issue. I don’t necessarily attribute this to corruption.
Spinelessness and laziness are all that’s required.
Pier,
Are council members allowed to take donations from developers and gaming interests such as Garden City. If so, this should be done away with. Hopefully, this is also your policy already.
#9
Steve,
Card clubs or their owners are not allowed to donate to council races based on city ordinance in the 1990’s since the city regulates them.
Developers are allowed to donate and every councilmember, including me, has accepted their donations. Some accept more, some accept less. For example, I raised approximately $150K for my primary and run-off election. Approximately $15K of The $150K was housing developer related. Outlawing donations from developers would be impossible under freedom of speech, talking to our city attorney.
Pierluigi,
We do not have a city attorney. The city council has a city provided attorney.
We do not have a Chamber of Commerce, we have a Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Silicone Valley Chamber of Commerce, paid for from the City of San Jose`s general fund.Meanwhile we have a shortage of police officers, fire stations, fire fighters,paramedics because the city has budget problems,so they say.
Do we cut the Sports Authority funding, no we cut core services. Sick.
P.O. informed us:“Outlawing donations from developers would be impossible under freedom of speech, talking to our city attorney.”
I don’t know which US Supreme Court first determined that the ACT of giving political donations is somehow speech. But as long as whatever decision that was continues to stand, regulation of campaign donations will be only hakf baked.
There have been many other decisions that have also dtermined that ACTS are somehow speech. They have wrought havoc in this country.
I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and that it should not be abridged by the government. But the definition of speech by The Supremes is way out of whack.
Interesting to read your insights on this topic. Thanks