An Ethics Proposal

I have at various times written about the unseemly influence of those who receive government money from the Town of Fishers making campaign donations for the re-election of the incumbents who granted those contracts.  (See, "Is Fishers For Sale?" April 20, 2011, in my Hamilton County Politics blog).

Sadly, the current crop of incumbents learned the wrong lesson from their peers.  Several of the council incumbents formed and participated in a Political Action Committee (PAC) called the "Royal Tiger PAC", which promised donors inside information about what is happening in town government, of course in return for donations.   The donors to that PAC ended up being a veritable "Who's Who" of insiders in Fishers.

This was written about in scalding terms by Republican blogger Paul Ogden, in his Ogden on Politics blog in April 2014.  Ogden's post is here:  http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2014/04/is-3500-price-of-political-influence-in.html.  Ogden referred to this as "unseemly", which it certainly is, at a minimum.

Not only was Pete Peterson, the Fishers Council's vice-president and treasurer of the Hamilton County Republican Party, a central figure in this, but also Fishers Council President John Weingardt (my opponent), new Fishers Council member Eric Moeller, and defeated County Council candidate Andrew Dollard, who after the primary was arrested in a pill-peddling scheme.  (The lawyer in me notes the case is pending, and Dollard is entitled to the presumption of innocence,)  Royal Tiger has since been disbanded over the furor over what seems to be yet another instance of "pay to play" politics in Hamilton County.

Now, nothing about this is APPARENTLY illegal, although it would not take much for it to be illegal.  The town's vendors who make such donations clearly are expecting to get their money back somehow.  But to make it a "quid pro quo", such as "I will donate to your campaign $3500, and in return, you will vote for the contract that I want to build a new office building", would be a criminal offense.

Similarly, if someone were to have gone to a vendor, or group of them and said that they HAD to contribute to Royal Tiger or some other committee if they wanted to continue to get government contracts, that too would be criminal.  But as of yet, no one has stepped up with any details of such pressure, perhaps because if they DID, they would be cut out of the lucrative government contracts.

The "appearance of impropriety" can be as bad as the improper behavior itself. It corrupts the public's faith in government by making it appear that the People's Government is for sale to special interests who make campaign contributions. It makes government contractors think they HAVE to support incumbents if they want to keep government business. And it blurs the line between "legal" and "illegal".

So, I have a proposal.  The U.S. Supreme Court has made decisions that say that in some cases, campaign contributions cannot be restricted.  So what I propose is to give those who want government money a choice.  I propose a Fishers ordinance to prohibit the giving of a Fishers government contract, or any other financial benefit including economic development incentives, to anyone who donates to a political candidate for Fishers' office.  And this is not an unusual restriction. The U.S. Government has prohibitions against Federal government contractors making campaign donations in a Federal election.  Several states and municipalities have either adopted or have considered a similar restriction.

Let's get the corporate welfare and cronyism out of our local politics.  I pledge that if elected, I will work with other members of the City Council, regardless of political party, to adopt such an ordinance, and let Fishers be an ethical example for the rest of the State of Indiana.