 |
| California Watch (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Long Beach Needs to Ban Contributions From Lobbyists
and Contractors, Make Elected Officials Disclose Conversations Before Vote Including
Texts and Emails During Council and Disclose Private Text Messages or Other
Electronic Communications About City Business
by Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske
As part of “Open Up Long Beach” – a project to make the City of
Long Beach more open and transparent, I monitor the efforts of organizations
that are working on transparency in government, such as the Sunlight
Foundation. Recently, that organization announced that the District Court in
the District of Columbia upheld the long time ban on political contributions
from any person negotiating or performing a federal government contract
stating:
The ban on such contributions guards
against “pay-to-play” arrangements, in which people seeking federal contracts
provide financial support to political candidates in return for their help
securing government business. It also protects such contractors from pressure
to contribute or risk losing their work.
The Court further stated that it was
not the “courts’ practice to
“‘second-guess a … [legislative] determination as to the need for prophylactic
measures where corruption is the evil feared’.”
It seems then it might be time for the
City of Long Beach to enact a similar contribution ban. Conceivably, that ban
could be applied to those who seek approval for a development, an entertainment
permit or those who are lobbying for a specific ordinance. Some would argue
that it should extend to employee unions who are under contract with the City.
I was particularly taken back when year
ago on February 14, the City Council voted on whether or not to ban operation
of medical marijuana collectives.
Why? Because in excess of $8,000 had
poured into the campaign and officeholder accounts of several council members
from businesses and lobbyists representing the medical marijuana industry. Now
that may not sound like a lot of money. But considering that contributions are
limited to $350 for a campaign and $500 for an officeholder account, this is a
considerable sum.
City Attorney Robert Shannon told the
City Council over the past several months that we needed to ban the operation
of medical marijuana collectives because the court ruled on a case specifically
involving the City of Long Beach’s regulation of medical marijuana collectives.
The court held that the City cannot regulate that which is illegal. Marijuana
is still illegal under federal law. A ban not only impacts access to
medical marijuana by residents but stops an extremely lucrative revenue stream
for those who operate the collectives. Some of these lobbyists who gave
contributions also sent Council members language they wanted inserted into the
City’s ordinance – a fact never disclosed during the discussion or the vote.
Long Beach should handle this situation
in one of two ways: Either ban the contributions from anyone who is negotiating
with the City or doing work for the City and/or require the elected official to
disclose before voting at City Council if he or she has received a contribution
and a statement that he or she does not believe there is a conflict of
interest. Plain and simple.
Several cities have enacted laws which
disqualify a council member from participating in decisions affecting his or
her campaign contributors. These laws disqualify the council member from participating in certain
proceedings if the official has received campaign contributions from a party,
participant or their agents within the 12 months preceding the decision. They
also require disclosure
on the record of the proceeding of all campaign contributions received from
these persons during that period. In addition, these laws prohibit solicitation or receipt of campaign contributions during
such proceedings, and for three months after the decision, from parties,
participants or their agents.
The voters of the City of Los Angeles
enacted changes to their charter in 2011 that create new campaign contribution
restrictions on contractors bidding on contracts with the City. They have
prohibited making campaign contributions to any elected City office, candidate
for elected City office, or City committee controlled by an elected City
official or candidate if the contract requires approval of the Council and the
contract requires approval by the elected City office that is held or sought by
the person to whom the contribution would be given. (In LA, the ban starts with
contracts worth $100,000 or more.)
It is time that Long Beach strengthened
our campaign finance laws by either prohibiting campaign contributions from
those trying to do or actively doing business with the City and by requiring
elected officials to publicly disclose before they take a vote whether or not
they have received any contributions from anyone benefiting from a council
vote.
Additionally, just this week the City
Council of San Jose unanimously passed an ordinance requiring themselves to
disclose if a lobbyist contacts a councilmember by text, email or handwritten
note during a public meeting and to announce the identity of the lobbyist and
the subject of the communication before it comes to a vote.
Another major development regarding
texts and emails came last week with a court ruling that San Jose City Councilmembers’ private text messages, emails and other electronic communications about
city affairs must be made public.
The City Council can pass these
legislative items to increase openness and transparency or the voters can gather
signatures to place a package of reforms on the ballot in the next general
election. In either case, Long Beach needs to move forward on this issue.
