Lobbyists Give, Councilmembers Take.
One Hand Washes the Other. Should it?

By Henry J. Stern
June 24, 2004

The widespread practice of lobbyists making campaign contributions to City Council members was revealed yesterday in a page 1 article in the Sun by David Andreatta.
 
The city's Campaign Finance Board found that 41 of 51 councilmembers accepted money from employees of the city's 35 top lobbying firms. And these contributions (up to $250 per gift) are matched by public funds on a 4-1 basis. If a lobbyist gives a politician $100, taxpayers put in another $400, so that the councilmember ends up with $500; this is often spent on persuading us that s/he should get 90% rather than 80% of the vote in a gerrymandered district.

Three Queens councilmembers actually received more gifts from these firms than Speaker Gifford Miller. They are Melinda Katz, chair of land use; David Weprin, finance chair; and Eric Gioia, chair of investigations. All three are energetic and ambitious members, and they did nothing illegal in accepting lobbyists' money. It is predictable but disquieting that those members who are perceived as having the most influence receive the most money from those who benefit, or hope to benefit, from their actions. These contributions are really investments by interested parties in the future of selected councilmembers.
 
Mayor Bloomberg is trying to restrict contributions from lobbyists and others who do business with the city. Of course, he doesn't need the money, although some candidates do. Many non-wealthy candidates don't need the money either, because their re-election is assured by demographics, politics or name recognition. Lobbyists' gifts, which are obviously self-serving even if unnecessary, raise ethical issues that deserve discussion.
 
Many gifts actually generated by lobbyists come in under the names of their clients or associates. These are harder to track, but they are inspired by self-interest, desire for protection, or gratitude for decisions that were favorable to the donors. The decisions are generally justified on the merits, but the custom of rewarding favorable decisions resembles the practice of tipping for good service; eventually it becomes expected, and its omission is an insult.
 
If these donations were received by appointed public officials, in recognition of services rendered or desired, they would be considered crimes, either bribery or extortion. They would also not be matched by city tax funds on a 4-1 (or any other) basis.
 
Difficult ethical issues are involved here. It is easy to pick on public officials who must raise money to run for office, unless they have great personal wealth. Most often, councilmembers confirm actions of others rather than initiate land use decisions.

But the Council, through items it adds to the budget, does fund many organizations who contract with the city. Those groups wisely employ lobbyists, people experienced in the budget process, who know who to see and how to ask for help. Should beneficiaries of municipal largesse ignore those officials who have gone out of their way to be helpful to their organizations?
 
A few months ago, I was critical of Speaker Miller for soliciting donations from employees of cultural institutions whose budgets the Council had increased. To some extent, the legitimacy of this custom may depend on the extent to which it is practiced. The entire process of pay for play leaves one with a vague feeling of discomfort.

But if the people whom you have helped cannot give you money, who should you ask for assistance? Unions, for example, have contributed to friends of labor for some time, and where that practice is legally restricted, there are substitute ways, like phone banks, to reward allies.

Campaign financing is a tortuous field. Lobbyists' contributions, solicited or not, do not make the situation any easier to resolve.