[Editor Note: I’ve made a correction below about Rick Lawrence self-funding - I’ll have more tonight.]
The Beacon News recently ran a story saying over 25% of Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner’s donors have received contracts, employment or funds from the city of Aurora. The article does not allege wrong-doing, but does suggest a problem with appearances which could be an issue for the mayor as he faces Alderwoman Stephanie Kifowit and Alderman Rick Lawrence in the upcoming 2009 Aurora mayoral election. Stephanie Kifowit has proposed changing Aurora to a city management form of government, which would insulate city operations from campaign donations and end the appearance of pay-to-play politics.
Alderwoman Stephanie Kifowit’s proposal that Aurora join innumerable communities around it and change to a city manager form of government has a number of advantages, including promoting more transparent government, professionalizing city administration and radically limiting the influence of campaign donations on city operations. Elected officials will still decide what to do - but the city manager, a hired professional who does not take campaign contributions, will decide how best to do it.
In contrast to Stephanie Kifowit’s proposal, last Tuesday Alderman Rick Lawrence proposed a “campaign finance ordinance” that would limit contributions during city elections to a maximum of $1,500 in an effort to reduce pressure on businesses and avoid “an environment and culture of corruption, pay-to-play, investigations and indictments.” While this is an improvement over unlimited campaign donations - it hardly seems like a cure to the problem - and it does have a number of problems:
* Bundling. There do not appear to be significant limits to “bundling” donations, the practice of major donors (think President Bush’s Pioneers and Rangers) getting large numbers of donors to donate, which can lead to problematic political influence.
* Timing. Despite being first elected in 2005, Lawrence seems to have first publicly mentioned his campaign finance proposal eight months ago, according to the Beacon News, and only now seems to have publicly provided a detailed proposal. Given Lawrence’s announcement of the contribution restriction proposal at the start of the mayoral race, and that he plans to spend up to $70,000 of his own money, it’s hard not to read this as a way of taking a whack at the competition. The effect is to limit Tom Weisner’s ability to raise additional big dollars (something he’s capable of doing and only started to raise in the second half of 2007). It also potentially limits Alderwoman Stephanie Kifowit’s ability to raise money, since she plans to run her campaign mostly on donations. As Stephanie puts it, “To me, in this election, [Lawrence’s ordinance proposal is] a little late in the game because the fundraising has already begun…. You don’t legislate for immediacy; you do it for good government.”
* Legality and enforcement. The Beacon News has reported that some state agencies were unsure if Aurora could implement Rick Lawrence’s proposed rules legally. If it can be done, there is also a question about enforcement - what sanctions on businesses or candidates would force them to uphold the law?
As Stephanie Kifowit pointed out to me recently,
“Rick Lawrence is proposing an ordinance similar to Chicago’s ordinance…. The problem [is] enforcement. …[T]his local ordinance is enforced by the City itself. However, the City does not have any authority to punish the organizations that might violate [Lawrence’s proposed] law. …[The way] to alleviate the influence campaign contributions have over an elected official is to fundamentally change the structure of the local government to include an isolated, non biased, non political person as the City Manager or Administrator.”
In other words, Stephanie wants to take a lot of politics out of city operations by separating government administration from special interest money. Aurora residents will still vote for elected officials who will decide what to do, but the city manager will decide how best to do it. That sounds like a serious solution to a serious problem, and a positive proposal for Aurora.
Comments 11
Has said he plans to spend up to 70,000 of his own money…
Where does it say that in
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/961185,2_1_AU21_LAWRENCE_S1.article
It says “Lawrence said he’d limit his spending during the race to $60,000 to $70,000.” I don’t see anything that states or implies that would be his own money…
Posted 28 May 2008 at 7:55 am ¶A few points on this…
Alderman Lawrence has never stated spending $70,000 of his own money, so perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
Alderman Kifowit has never made any official attempt to propose a change of government and there is no current attempt pending.
Our review of the propsed campaign finance ordinance by Lawrence does prevent bundling by those associated with the same entities.
There is enforcement, including major fines for each violation of the campaign finance ordinance and returning the contribution itself.
As for the timing, the matter was proposed a couple months ago and now that all three candidates have emerged and BEFORE the candidates start getting into the serious phases of a campaign, we think the timing is very appropriate.
Of all three candidates, this benefits Kifowit the most. We think this is a critical positive step toward removing the influence of money in this election. Considering what Weisner’s cronies will do to save their reign over Aurora, it is essential for everyone to implement this first step.
If Kifowit wants to make the ordinance even more strict, she should offer that.
Everyone in Aurora knows there is a serious problem so this would be the most immediate solution.
We strongly support the campaign finance ordinance and urge everyone to support it. Kifowit’s change of government proposal is a separate matter.
Posted 28 May 2008 at 8:35 am ¶I believe that the whole system is corrupt. The newspaper said that this was just like Chicago’s ordinance. Well, Chicago is still as corrupt as ever. The hired truck scandal; nephews managing millions of dollars, etc. The answer for me is clear, no ordinance will stop the pay-to-play politics. The newspaper stated that this is only an issue between Chicago, Aurora and Springfield. Why is that? It is because everywhere else there are managers/administrators in place to stop this practice. I went to the Illinois City/County Management Association website http://www.ILCMA.org and found it very informative. It doesn’t matter to me who starts what initiative, to run on a campaign of a manager form of government is sound and it makes sense. I think that if an alderman tried to strip the mayor of all his power right now, he would influence the rest of his “people” to vote against it. I can see why something would not move forward. However, I believe that people should start to circulate petitions now as well; because if Kifowit does not get elected we do need a manager form of government. We should cover all our bases.
Posted 28 May 2008 at 1:14 pm ¶Here’s the ordinance that I proposed. This is not designed to target Tom. It includes anyone that runs for public office in Aurora. Tom has just taken fund raising to a level that raises suspicions of impropriety. If Stephanie stands for honest government she will support this and place it on G.O..
If Stephanie Kifowit wants to have a City Manager why doesn’t she start getting petitions now to have it on the November ballot? You don’t have to wait to be Mayor. What would she do as Mayor once we hired a City Manager? Would she expect the same salary as a figure head? The Mayor then would become a part time job with less responsibility then the Alderman.
Rick
ORDINANCE NUMBER 008-_________
DATE OF PASSAGE: _______________
AN ORDINANCE to limit campaign contributions for City elections made by Persons doing business with the City and setting a maximum limit for contributions during therefore.
WHEREAS, the City of Aurora has a population of more than 25,000 persons and is, therefore, a home rule unit under subsection (a) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution of 1970; and
WHEREAS, subject to said Section, a home rule unit may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs for the protection of the public health, safety, morals and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aurora has determined that it is in the best interest of public health, safety, morals and welfare to limit campaign contributions made by Persons Doing Business with the City of Aurora and set a maximum contribution as set forth in this Ordinance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Aurora, Illinois, as follows:
Section 1. Short Title.
This Ordinance may be cited as the “Campaign Finance Ordinance.”
Section 2. Legislative Purpose and Findings.
The City Council finds that unlimited, unchecked and excessive campaign contributions have the appearance of impropriety and thereby negatively effect the electoral process and that it is in the best of the residents and electorate of the City of Aurora that the integrity of the electoral process be maintained.
Section 3. Definitions.
Whenever used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) “Candidate” means any person who seeks nomination for election, election to or retention in or appointed to any elected office of the government of the City, whether or not such person is elected. A person seeks nomination for election, election or retention if he or she (1) takes the action necessary under the laws of the State of Illinois to attempt to qualify for nomination for election, election to or retention in public office, or (2) receives contributions or makes expenditures, or gives consent for any other person to receive contributions or make expenditures with a view to bringing about his or her nomination for election or election to or retention in such office.
(b) “City” means the City of Aurora, and Illinois Municipal Corporation and any of its subdivisions, departments, commissions, committees or any other entity, person or corporation of the City including but not limited to The Aurora Public Library, Police and Fire Departments, Aurora Housing Authority, Economic Development Commission, Park District, Downtown Redevelopment Commission and any and all subdivisions thereof.
(c) “Contribution” or “political contribution,” means any gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit of money, allotment of money, or anything of value given or transferred by one person to another, including in cash, by check, by draft, through a payroll deduction or allotment plan, by pledge or promise, whether or not enforceable, or otherwise, for purposes of influencing in any way the outcome of any election. For the purposes of this definition, a political contribution does not include:
(1) A loan made at a market rate by a lender in his or her ordinary course of business;
(2) The use of real or personal property and the cost of invitations, food, and beverages, voluntarily provided by an individual in rendering voluntary personal services on the individual’s residential premises for candidate-related activities; provided the value of the service provided does not exceed an aggregate of $150.00 in a reporting period as defined in Article 9 of the Illinois Election Code;
(3) The sale of any food or beverage by a vendor for use in a candidate’s campaign at a charge less than the normal comparable charge, if such charge for use in a candidate’s campaign is at least equal to the cost of such food or beverage to the vendor.
(d) “Committee” or “political committee” means a political committee as defined in Article 9 of the Illinois Election Code, as amended.
(e) “Doing business” means any one sale or any combination of sales, purchases, leases or contracts to, from or with the City or any agency or subdivision thereof in an amount in excess of $10,000.00 in any 12 consecutive months.
(f) “Employee” means a person employed by the City, whether part-time or full-time, but excludes elected officials and City contractors.
(g) “Expenditure” means an expenditure as defined in Article 9 of the Illinois Election Code, as amended.
(h) “Financial interest” means (i) any interest as a result of which the owner currently receives or is entitled to receive in the future more than $2,500.00 per year; (ii) any interest with a cost or present value of $5,000.00 or more; or (iii) any interest representing more than 10 percent of a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, firm, enterprise, franchise, organization, holding company, joint stock company, receivership, trust, or any legal entity organized for profit or not for profit; provided, however, financial interest shall not include (a) any interest of the spouse of an official or employee which interest is related to the spouse’s independent occupation, profession or employment; (b) any ownership through purchase at fair market value or inheritance of less than one percent of the shares of a corporation, or any corporate subsidiary, parent or affiliate thereof, regardless of the value of or dividends on such shares, if such shares are registered on a securities exchange pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; (c) the authorized compensation paid to an official or employee for his office or employment; (d) any economic benefit provided equally to all residents of the City; (e) a time or demand deposit in a financial institution; (e) an endowment or insurance policy or annuity contract purchased from an insurance company.
(i) “Seeking to do business” means (1) taking any action within the past four (4) reporting periods to obtain a contract or business from the City when, if such action were successful, it would result in the person’s doing business with the City; and (2) the contract or business sought has not been awarded to any person.
(j) “Domestic Partner” means a ‘qualified domestic partner’ as defined in section ___________ of this code.
(k) “Gift” means any thing of value given without consideration or expectation of return, including but not limited to any gratuity, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, but not limited to cash, food and drink, favor or promise of future employment and honoraria for speaking engagements related to or attributable to government employment or the official position of an Official or employee or other tangible or intangible item having monetary value
(l) “Person”, means any individual, entity, corporation, partnership, firm, association, union, trust, estate, as well as any parent, subsidiary, partner, member executor or administrator of any of the foregoing, whether or not operated for profit.
(m) “Political fundraising committee” means any Person, fund, organization, political action committee or other entity that, for purposes of influencing in any way the outcome of any election, receives or expends money or anything of value or transfers money or anything of value to any other fund, political party, candidate, organization, political action committee, or other entity.
(n) “Official” means any person elected or appointed to an office of the City including exempt employees, regardless of whether the person, while holding such office, is compensated or any appointed non-employee member of any agency of the City.
Section 4. Gifts and Favors to Candidates.
(a) No Person doing business with the City shall give or offer to give to any Candidate, or to the spouse or Domestic Partner or minor child of a Candidate, and none of them shall accept any Contribution or Gift or anything of value.
(b) Except as prohibited in subsection (a), nothing in this section shall prohibit any person from giving or receiving (i) an award presented in recognition of public service; (ii) commercially reasonable loans made in the ordinary course of the lenders business; (iii) political contributions, provided that they are reported to the extent required by law; (iv) reasonable hosting, including travel expenses, entertainment, meals or refreshments in connection with public events, appearances or ceremonies related to official City business, if furnished by the sponsor of such event.
Section 5. Anonymous and Pseudonymous Contributions.
No Person shall offer or make, and no Candidate, candidate’s committee or Person acting in behalf of either of them shall solicit or accept, any Contribution or Gift that is (a) anonymously given; or (b) made or to be made other than in the name of the true donor.
Section 6. Limitation of Contributing to Candidates and Elected Officials.
(a) No Person who has done business with the City, within the preceding four reporting years or is Seeking to do business with the City, shall make contributions in an aggregate amount exceeding $1,500.00:
(i) to any Candidate for City office during a single candidacy; or
(ii) to an Official of the government of the City during any reporting year of his term; or
(iii) to any Official or Employee of the City who is seeking election to any other office.
For purposes of this section, (i) candidacy in primary and general elections shall be considered separate and distinct candidacies; and (ii) all contributions to a candidate’s authorized political committees shall be considered contributions to the Candidate. The combined effect of these provisions is intended to permit total contribution up to but not exceeding $3,000.00 in a reporting year in which a candidacy occurs. A reporting year is from July 1st to June 30th. The first filing date will be June 30, 2008 and annually thereafter. For purposes of this subsection only “seeking to do business” means (i) the definition set forth in this ordinance and (ii) any matter that was pending before the City Council or any City Council committee in the 6 months prior to the date of the contribution if that matter involved the award of loan funds, grant funds or bond proceeds, bond inducement ordinances, leases, land sales, zoning matters, the creation or amendment of tax increment financing districts, concession agreements or any other advantage or grant which may be available to such Person.
(b) For purposes of subsection (a) above, an entity and its subsidiaries, parent company or otherwise affiliated companies, and any of their employees, officers, directors, members and partners who make a political contribution for which they are reimbursed by the entity or its affiliates shall be considered a single person. However, nothing in this provision shall be construed to prohibit such an employee, officer, director, member or partner from making a political contribution for which he is not reimbursed by a person with whom he or she is affiliated, even if that person has made the maximum contribution allowed under subsection (a).
(c) For purposes of subsection (a) above, a contribution to (i) any political fundraising committee of a Candidate or Official, or (ii) any political fundraising committee which, during the reporting year in which the contribution is to be made, has itself made contributions or given financial support in excess of 50 percent of that committee’s total receipts for the reporting year to a particular candidate, elected official, or the authorized fundraising committee of that candidate or elected official, shall be considered a contribution to that candidate or elected official.
Section 7. Cash Contributions.
No person shall make any cash contribution to any Candidate in an amount in excess of $250 and such contribution shall be disclosed and recorded pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Illinois Election Code.
Section 8. Penalties.
Any person who violates any provision of this ordinance or furnishes false, misleading or incomplete information with the intent to mislead shall be liable for a penalty of $1,000 per offense, in addition to forfeiture or refund of any contributions received in excess of the limit (language to be added for enforcement).
Section 9. Relationship to Other Laws.
The procedures and penalties provided in this chapter are supplemental and do not limit either the power of the City Council to discipline its own members or the power of any other City agency to otherwise discipline Officials or Employees or take appropriate administrative action. Nothing in this chapter is intended to repeal or is to be construed as repealing in any way the provisions of any other law or ordinance.
Section 10. Severability.
If any provision of this chapter or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this chapter which can be given effect without the invalid application or provision, and to this end each such invalid provision or invalid application of the chapter is severable, unless otherwise provided by this chapter. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent of the City Council that this chapter would have been adopted had any such unconstitutional or otherwise invalid provision or application not been included.
The balance of this page is intentionally left blank.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Aurora, Illinois on this
_____________ Day of __________________________, 2008.
AYES _______ NAYS ______ NOT VOTING _______
SIGNED by the Mayor of the City of Aurora, Illinois, on this _______ day of _______________________, 2008.
_____________________________________
Mayor City of Aurora Illinois
Attest:
Posted 28 May 2008 at 1:44 pm ¶Oh yeah….
There do not appear to be significant limits to “bundling” donations, the practice of major donors (think President Bush’s Pioneers and Rangers) getting large numbers of donors to donate, which can lead to problematic political influence.
Because we know only evil Republicans bundle, Democrats only raise money in $10 increments from blue collar folks, retirees and widows and orphans.
Posted 28 May 2008 at 2:25 pm ¶Timing. Despite being first elected in 2005, Lawrence seems to have first publicly mentioned his campaign finance proposal eight months ago
Ummm so he get elected in April 2005 and brings up the proposal in September of 2007, so since it took him two years after he got elected the idea isn’t legitimate?
Sorry I don’t get your logic on this one at all.
If so when did Stephanie first propose the city manager thing publicly? Using your logic unless it was within a short time after she got elected the first time, her timing his
Posted 28 May 2008 at 2:54 pm ¶THAT’S NICE. DEMOCRATS IN NAPERVILLE SHOULD RUN A CANDIDATE TO GET RID OF GEORGE PARDEL. HE IS USELESS!
Posted 28 May 2008 at 6:23 pm ¶We contacted Mr. Lawrence to clarify various aspects of the campaign finance ordinance and we understand he attempted to post a comment along with the full campaign finance ordinance, which we request Hiram to publish.
Aurora has seen campaign contributions from Weisner’s cronies result in contracts, jobs, favors and other benefits at the expense of taxpayers. This cannot continue.
Just like with the $2,300 maximum for federal elections, limiting contributions allows people to still express their support financially but prevents certain abuse and misuse as we have seen in Aurora.
Corruption in Aurora has flourished but if we do nothing, it will continue to get worse. Either we are part of the problem or part of the solution.
We hope Ms. Kifowit is part of the solution. While she may believe a city manager might make it easier to prevent corruption with campaign contributions, we still have the same incompetent city council except for Lawrence and Kifowit that would hire such a manager.
And that city council gets elected, too. This ordinance would apply to everyone, not just the position of mayor.
Everyone says they want to reduce the influence of money into politics, so let’s put our words in action and pass this ordinance.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 12:07 am ¶Alderman Rick Lawrence’s comment is up - sorry to Rick and all others for the delay (it got “moderated” and was buried under various illegitimate pharmaceutical offers, etc.). As an fyi to all, I publish all comments that are “on topic,” don’t contain obscenities, are not fraudulent and broadly speaking are “civil” - whether I agree with the comment or not. I really appreciate having Alderman Rick Lawrence’s contribution to the discussion as well.
Posted 29 May 2008 at 10:29 am ¶We think this is an important discussion and we intend to do more on this soon because of growing problems in Aurora with corruption by the current regime.
Posted 02 Jun 2008 at 12:37 pm ¶OpenlineBlog and OneMan,
I agree that this is an important issue - I have done a bit of work on it and hope to respond to you both soon (probably in a post and not in these comments).
Posted 03 Jun 2008 at 9:04 pm ¶Post a Comment