Ban Fundraising Among L.A. City Commissioners

Today, Los Angeles’ Ethics Commission will consider whether city commissioners should be prohibited from engaging in political fundraising. The matter will then go to the City Council. Both should act quickly to enhance good government in Los Angeles by eliminating such practices.

The way it works now, there is a commissioner for nearly every city department. Most of these commissioners, who are appointed by the mayor, are responsible for awarding millions of dollars worth of contracts. But over the years, it has become accepted practice for commissioners to engage in political fundraising for elected officials, directly by soliciting contributions from potential donors and indirectly by being featured guests at fundraisers. In just the last few months, several commissioners have been hosts or “special guests” at $1,000-a-head fundraisers, and potential city contractors have been among those invited.

Not surprisingly, this kind of behavior has led to a widespread perception that if you want to do business with the city, you must “pay to play.” Vendors who are seeking contracts from the city acknowledge privately that they feel pressured to contribute when solicited by commissioners. (City commissioners, in turn, say they often feel pressure to raise funds.)

It’s an unhealthy situation. When commissioners engage in fundraising, there is inevitably the appearance of influence peddling -- and especially so at a time when a county grand jury is probing possible corruption in the awarding of airport contracts and a federal grand jury is apparently considering whether there has been criminal misconduct in connection with three city departments.

The only solution is a city ordinance that bans city commissioners from participating in any fundraising activity on behalf of elected officials.

Several objections have been made to this proposal. First, some have suggested that imposing this restriction would infringe on the commissioners’ 1st Amendment right to engage in political activities. This argument has no merit because the courts regularly have upheld similar restrictions. One is the federal Hatch Act, which prohibits federal Civil Service employees from engaging in any political activity, including fundraising. Similarly, courts throughout the country have upheld laws that make it illegal for judges and candidates for judicial office to participate in raising money for their campaigns or for any causes. The same interests justify banning fundraising by city commissioners.

Mayor James K. Hahn has said commissioners should not lose their right to participate in political activities. But a ban on fundraising would not strip commissioners of their 1st Amendment rights. They could still engage in many political activities, just not fundraising.

Second, some, including Hahn, argue that disclosure is a sufficient remedy for the problem and that a prohibition on fundraising is not necessary.

Although disclosure is desirable, it is not enough. It does not protect commissioners from feeling pressured to solicit or businesses from feeling pressured to contribute. It does not eliminate the perception that a donation increases the likelihood of lucrative contracts.

Third, some opponents of reform argue that the city has ethics laws that are already too complicated. Actually, banning fundraising by commissioners would simplify the ethics standards and create clearer rules.

The proposal to ban fundraising by city commissioners is ultimately about what kind of government we want in Los Angeles. This is a city that has traditionally sought the best practices to prevent corruption and, as a result, has had far fewer scandals than most large cities. The Ethics Commission, the mayor and City Council members should continue this tradition by setting aside any self-interest.