by David Ball
Staff Writer
Imagine a City Council election in which candidates couldn’t accept any campaign contributions from businesses or groups. Donations could only be made by individuals, and there were measures in place to make sure a single contributor didn’t exceed his or her $500 contribution limit.
That is the proposal being investigated by the Jacksonville Ethics Commission, which on Monday heard from the leader of a local group hoping to initiate a voter referendum to effect those changes.
Local activist and two-time City Council candidate Scott Shine formed the 501(c)4 Jacksonville Elections Reform Study Group last year following what he called “coffee shop discussion” that eventually led to a 40-member organization with a board of directors.
Monday, Shine presented the group’s reform concept that he said hinged on eliminating campaign “rainmaking,” where an individual or entity contributes large amounts to a candidate that could give the contributor political sway if the candidate is elected.
“This is an issue of influence,” Shine told the commission. “For the past six months, we’ve been looking and studying available data from the Supervisor of Elections...and typically, a winning candidate has three times the money as a losing candidate.”
According to Elections Reform Study Group’s research, the winning candidates during the 2007 City Council elections averaged $90,084 in contributions, while the losers averaged $29,887. In looking at all races in 2007 (including Mayor Peyton’s $1.25 million raised), the disparity grows to $152,404 for winners and $31,441 for losers.
However, Shine said the issue is less about total contributions and more about who contributes and how much.
“The campaign contribution limit is $500 per legal entity,” he said. “But we find that some companies might have 10 different subsidiary corporations.”
A snapshot pulled from the Supervisor of Elections Web site shows one Council candidate received $500 contributions from J. Daniel Collins, his company, the Collins Group, and three subsidiary companies all sharing the same address.
A breakdown of another candidate’s records by the Elections Reform Study Group showed that five entities made up of various related individuals and groups contributed $17,000 to a successful campaign.
But for the most part, these kinds of contributions are legal according to current election laws. However, one common violation, Shine said, is “bundling,” where someone gives several separate donations on “behalf” of another individual or entity.
Shine said it was hard for him to sort out the laws when he previously ran for the Dist. 3 Council seat currently held by Richard Clark.
“I’ve been there,” he said. “Someone walks up to you with a handful of checks, it’s going to make your day.”
Shine added that the campaign finance system itself doesn’t lend to much outside oversight.
“We did our campaign finance reports and for the most part there is no audit, no systematic review unless there is a complaint,” he said. “There’s a very minimal amount of oversight for something that has pretty profound implications.”
And so, Shine’s group drafted a proposed referendum to make campaign contributions allowed only from “natural persons,” or a single individual. Those individuals would also have to submit a statement attesting that the contribution was their’s, and their’s alone. Shine said the language is based on legislation already approved by voters in Sarasota and Ft. Lauderdale.
“We’d like you to take this up as a study item, look at the data we have and come back with a set of recommendations,” Shine told the commission, which he described as an “objective third party.”
The commission seemed receptive, and City Ethics Officer Carla Miller called it a “good development” that an outside group has proposed ethics changes to the Ethics Commission.
“Ethics commissions across the country are considering this type of reform,” she said.
However, Jon Phillips, the commission’s liaison with the Office of General Counsel, said it would be wise to research the referendum’s legality before recommending this kind of reform.
“Just because it passed in Sarasota three months ago,” he said, “it may be too soon to know if it’s been challenged yet.”
The Ethics Commission’s legislative subcommittee will research the reform.
Also Monday, the commission discussed recommending possible changes to the City’s ethics code regarding lobbyists. Those changes, which will also be investigated by the legislative subcommittee, include:
• Applying the code and registration requirements to those lobbying the City’s independent authorities.
• Requiring a lobbyist disclose if he or she maintains an interest in the outcome of a vote to the Planning Commission and other City boards and commissions. Currently, it only requires disclosure before the City Council.
• Administering civil penalties, such as fines, to lobbyists who violate the code. The current penalties are criminal, issued by the State Attorney, and include a maximum fine of $250.
• Banning independent authorities from using public funds to pay for the lobbying of City officials.