Lift Campaign Donation Caps, But Ban Them From Special Interests

Understatement alert: money in politics is not popular. If news of loosening campaign fundraising rules doesn’t land well, that’s why. It’s an especially bad look when sitting representatives propose it.

That said, money in this arena is a necessary evil. In fact, I’d add that it’s not all necessarily evil. No one would deny that it’s needed to advertise, to get your name out there, especially if you’re a newcomer. You also need to get your message in front of people.

Social media alone won’t do it. Speaking from experience, participating in candidate forums is insufficient. Going door-to-door pays dividends (not to mention is quite enjoyable), but you need to know exactly where the likely voters are to be effective. 

When I ran for San Antonio City Council last year, I had a middle-class supporter who wanted to help me more than the $500/candidate/donor/reporting period would allow. So, a political action committee (PAC) was set-up.  

Poof! Much higher limits, if any at all. Plus, some PACs allow donors to contribute anonymously.

Money will flow into politics one way or another, for sincere purposes, or not-so-sincere purposes. Relegating ourselves to the system we have however, not only dims the lights on transparency, but it also tips the scales in favor of those who know how to work the system. That’s assuming they even follow the rules.  

Campaign finance reports are replete with donations blatantly exceeding caps. Then there are the ones who try to be cute: max donations each from John Smith, Jonathan Smith, and Jonny Smith, all of whom reside at 123 Main Street.

That’s an amusing bit in a Nate Bargatze routine, but not here. Needless to say, enforcement, at least here in the Alamo City, is lacking. 

The caps should be raised.

If you have supporters who are big believers in what you stand for, and want to donate more than an arbitrary limit, what’s easier for them: doing it with one click, or finding the right PAC? Or worse, spending valuable time learning how to set one up?

The entrenched political class faces no such obstacles. They have operatives on retainer to do just that.

Don’t mistake this for opposition to PACs, though. As much as the First amendment protects our right to say what we want, and “press” it into signs and campaign literature, it also guarantees our ability “peaceably to assemble.”

If a pro-gun group wants to support candidate A, while an anti-gun group wants to support candidate B, fine. If the opposing sides of the abortion debate want to square-off vicariously through their preferred candidates, game-on.

These are human rights issues, and arguably what our political system should be more about. Other special interests on the other hand, are a different story.

If your paycheck comes courtesy of the municipal taxpayer, whether a check stamped with the official city seal, or one from an entity contracted and paid by the municipality, you should not be able to donate a single penny to municipal candidates.

If you or your organization represents such an individual or entity, you should not be able to donate a single penny to municipal candidates.
Campaign contributions from these individuals and organizations represent clear conflicts of interest. Their livelihoods depend to an extent on decisions made by elected representatives steering taxpayer dollars here or there.  

Does this mean that corruption is always necessarily the result? No.  

When I met with the head of one non-governmental organization (NGO) to learn about their mission, I asked them about their donations to a couple candidates. They seemed genuinely surprised, and a little embarrassed about how it’s construed.

But when you find donations from several different donors, who can all be connected to a list of contractors doing this or that for the city or county, it raises eyebrows. As the late Senator John McCain once said, “it’s not only impropriety that counts, it’s the appearance that is just as important.”  

Given the undisciplined gravy train that is government spending, campaign donations are a good investment for big businesses to make in order to secure “access” (wink, wink) to the possibility of a regular revenue stream.

It’s also a wise decision for the policymaker, as it gives them an inside track to future employment with these NGOs.

At the end of the day, all this puts small businesses at a disadvantage, and exudes a brazen disrespect for citizens and taxpayers.