A failed ethics test
The San Francisco Ethics Commission had the opportunity to pass a commonsense measure to curtail money in politics. It failed. The ordinance would have banned the practice of allowing political donors to contribute to the charitable causes of favored candidates when those donors have a contract up for approval or a pending land-use decision in front of city officials. Such arrangements are commonplace — and they stink to high heaven. As critics of the practice — which is a problem at the state-government level, too — have noted, deep-pocketed donors seeking to curry favor with San Francisco officials have delivered money to hospitals, schools and homeless charities.
Political officials may have perfectly reasonable pet causes. But just because the practice is charitable doesn’t make it acceptable.
People seeking political favors shouldn’t be allowed to steer money toward politicians’ favored causes.
“My concern is the undue influence, which could lead to corruption,” said ethics commissioner Quentin Kopp, who voted for the ordinance.
Kopp added that he has no ill will toward charities. “A major beneficiary of behested contributions — not necessarily from nonprofit organizations, but from corporations — has been Mayor Ed Lee,” Kopp said. “The practice is unseemly.”
Critics also have charged that the ordinance’s private right of action, which allows anyone to bring a civil suit against organizations allegedly violating campaign finance laws, will lead to frivolous lawsuits.
But an elected city attorney might be hesitant to pursue these kinds of claims. Besides, San Francisco has several ordinances with a private right of action clause — and these apocalyptic scenarios haven’t come to pass.
The ordinance likely will appear before the commission again. But unless something changes, it’s likely to face another uphill battle.
The Board of Supervisors could pass a ban on the practice, and the mayor could sign it. This is also true for Sacramento, where the Legislature and governor could act in the public interest.
Yet politicians have had a difficult time enacting new laws that would limit their donors in this way. Sadly, it’s easy to understand why.
What’s more difficult to understand is why San Francisco’s ethics commission won’t do its job.