End Direct Corporate Contributions to Political Campaigns

Just over a year ago, I responded to a series of tweets promoting the At Large Council Member candidacy of Bryan Weaver by tweeting, "What, if anything, does Weaver propose to do about corporate contributions? It's the LLCs that really distort things." I believed then, as I continue to believe now, that the tactic of individuals contributing multiple maximum campaign contributions through corporate entities under their control undermines the District of Columbia's campaign contribution limit. In response to my tweet, I learned that Weaver held a position almost identical to my own. Weaver has now gone beyond simply making corporate contributions a campaign issue and formed an organization called D.C. Public Trust which has organized a voter initiative to ban direct political donations from corporations to local candidates, constituent services funds, transition and inaugural committees, and legal defense funds.

Initiative 70, as it has been numbered by the DC Board of Elections and Ethics, or "The Prohibition on Corporate Campaign Contributions Initiative of 2012" as it has been named, will appear on the November ballot if organizers collect at least 23,000 signatures throughout the city by July 9. D.C. Public Trust volunteers have already been actively collecting signatures and will blanket polling places on April 3.

Frequently when told about this initiative, individuals respond by suggesting that the Supreme Court legalized corporate contributions in its "Citizens United" decision. However, that ruling dealt with corporate contributions to independent expenditure campaigns. In fact, Initiative 70 would align DC law with current federal law as well as the laws of over 20 states. The initiative would be an important step in leveling the playing field for campaign contributions.

How corporations exploit the current contribution rules is easily illustrated by reviewing contributions to the campaign of Vincent Orange, who is running for re-election to an At Large Council seat. For example, consider the following contributions:

Notice that all of these contributions come from businesses using the same address, right down to the suite number. They are all for the maximum amount of $1,000 and all (but one) were given on the same day. The companies all appear to be associated with the Axent Reality Group which is led by Richard S. Cohen, a developer of commercial properties in the District. According to Maryland's Department of Assessments and Taxation, the 1722 Eye Street partnership was forfeited in 2000. Similarly, Pennsylvania Building Associates was forfeited in 2004. I couldn't even find 5501 Connecticut Ave Assoc, Vermont Assoc, or Square 3942 Assoc in Maryland's database. It's possible that only one of these companies legally exists.

The example above illustrates another problem with corporate contributions: the identity of the contributor is shielded. In both Maryland and the District, basic information about corporations is available online, but the ownership structure is not provided. Generally, the registered agent is listed, but little more. So, candidates like Orange will repeat ad nauseam that they report contributions as required by law. However, individuals have little ability to determine the true source of the money. But, you can bet that if someone hands Orange a stack of six checks for $1,000 each, he is aware of the source.

Corporate contributions of the nature illustrated here are part of the process of buying influence. The result is the "pay for play" culture that has become common in the District's politics. Initiative 70 will prohibit this blatant disregard of the District's contribution limits.

D.C. Public Trust is still recruiting volunteers to collect signatures. If you can't collect signatures, but would like to make a contribution in some way, you can visit the organization's website at dcpublictrust.org.