Taxpayer protection & campaign finance: You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours
Progressives know that in our system, access to government and to elected officials is bought and paid for by campaign contributions. Most citizens of Columbus know this, regardless of their political leanings.
Conflicts-of-Interest
But it is rare, if ever, that Campaign Finance initiatives contain conflict-of-interest provisions. Of the 48 tax abatements granted by the city from 1998 to 2000, almost half were to entities that contributed to Columbus City Council members or the two Mayors. If you include money from those entities that received TIFs, (Tax-Increment Financing) “Economic Development Subsidies,” and unbid contracts, the vast majority of campaign funds come from those doing business with the city. So what can be done?
Fortunately a group in California, called The Oaks project, has been confronting this problem and has been successful in getting Taxpayer Protection ordinances passed in several cities, including San Francisco and Santa Monica. These laws forbid public officials from receiving campaign advantage from entities they voted to grant public benefits to.
A local Campaign Finance initiative includes major elements of the Oaks Project. In addition to setting contribution limits, it would: Create a Columbus Election Commission to administer the law
Mandate electronic filing and reporting so campaign records can be easily accessed by the public on the internet.
Establish penalties for public officials who accepted employment or campaign contributions from people, corporations, or other entities that received public benefits in the form of tax abatements, tax-increment financing, “economic development subsidies,” or unbid contracts.
Levy penalties for making or accepting contributions that exceed the limits and for failing to file a report
Creat reporting requirements for independent expenditures.
Forbid candidates who voted to approve a public benefit from receiving monies or job offers from those entities, persons or corporations that received the public benefit.
For further information see http://dsco.org or www.centralohiogreens.org/taxpayer-protection.htm
Rick Wilhelm is a member of the Democratic Socialists of Central Ohio
Progressives know that in our system, access to government and to elected officials is bought and paid for by campaign contributions. Most citizens of Columbus know this, regardless of their political leanings.
Conflicts-of-Interest
But it is rare, if ever, that Campaign Finance initiatives contain conflict-of-interest provisions. Of the 48 tax abatements granted by the city from 1998 to 2000, almost half were to entities that contributed to Columbus City Council members or the two Mayors. If you include money from those entities that received TIFs, (Tax-Increment Financing) “Economic Development Subsidies,” and unbid contracts, the vast majority of campaign funds come from those doing business with the city. So what can be done?
Fortunately a group in California, called The Oaks project, has been confronting this problem and has been successful in getting Taxpayer Protection ordinances passed in several cities, including San Francisco and Santa Monica. These laws forbid public officials from receiving campaign advantage from entities they voted to grant public benefits to.
A local Campaign Finance initiative includes major elements of the Oaks Project. In addition to setting contribution limits, it would:
For further information see http://dsco.org or www.centralohiogreens.org/taxpayer-protection.htm
Rick Wilhelm is a member of the Democratic Socialists of Central Ohio