It was interesting yesterday morning I had a long discussion about this very topic with a community member who argued it should not make a difference who a candidate took money from if that individual was open to taking money and representing a broad-coalition of people.
Now, there is increasing scrutiny on the power firefighter union contributions and the ethics of taking money from a city bargaining group that a councilmember has to negotiate with on behalf of the bosses, the taxpayers of the city of Davis.
Candidate Joe Krovoza started this debate when he declared he would not accept money from “those who have a direct economic interest in the decisions of the council.”
This led Bob Dunning to question whether this prohibition might be too inclusive, in that everyone might have direct economic interest in the decisions of the council, but also as he put it, whether one could be “corrupted for a mere hundred bucks.”
He wrote two weeks ago:
“Davis has a hundred-dollar limit for individual donations to a City Council campaign, but candidates still act as if that amount of money might be enough to buy a vote – while they themselves are, of course, not subject to being influenced by donations, they do take great pains to point out who’s contributing to the opposition – again, the limit is 100 bucks – shouldn’t be much of an issue.”
That of course led people like me to take issue with the claim that we are merely talking about $100. In fairness to Mr. Dunning, we have had our differences in the past, but he did represent my argument accurately yesterday in his column.
“HEY BUDDY, CAN I SELL YOU A VOTE? – my friend David, disputing my contention that it’s awfully darn hard to buy a council member’s vote in this town for a hundred-dollar campaign contribution, notes that ‘when you have the firefighters bundle 40 of their donations, doesn’t that have the possibility of buying the vote?’ – certainly closer than $100 does, but it still presupposes that there are crooks on the council, which I simply refuse to believe.”
Let me just say, I do not think you have to be a crook to be influenced in your decisions by money – although I probably should have used the term, “influence” rather than “buying.” Moreover, it is not just a conflict of interest that is important, it is the appearance, or as I put it, the “possibility” that is problematic.
He continued:
“When I look at the five council members we have now, none of them appears to be starving to death and none of them seems capable of selling his or her vote to the highest bidder – it’s just not the kind of people they are – adds David: ‘The firefighters MOU was approved, 3-2. Three people who voted ‘yes’ all received money from the firefighters the last time they ran. The two who voted ‘no’ did not.’ –
Fair enough – but there’s no evidence those five folks wouldn’t have voted exactly the same way anyway…”
That is of course the conundrum of influence peddling, there is never evidence and only appearance. If I take a bribe in exchange for my public vote, is it okay if I would have voted that way anyway?
But more to the point, his objection misses a fundamental problem by assuming there might be a set way of voting, that a vote is a given rather than the result of weighing different factors and balancing interests. The problem here is that one of the interests and factors should not be the fact that the people I am dealing with gave me $4000 in campaign contributions last time and I do not want to anger them by voting against them in the future.
And it does happen. In 2004, Sue Greenwald was endorsed by the firefighters who gave her their standard treatment. She then went out and opposed the MOU that granted them a 36% pay raise over a four year period. She also opposed them in other ways, she did not get their endorsement in 2008. She was willing to buck the interest, but two of her colleagues (Councilmembers Souza and Saylor) did not and they subsequently received the endorsement and money from the firefighters in 2008.
Getting back to my original point, there is no mistaking the intent of the firefighters here. I pulled this image from the disclosure papers of Sydney Vergis from 2008 to illustrate the point. The firefighter contributions all occur on the same date, they are not merely handing her individual checks, they are bundling these checks to maximize their influence. This is quite clearly done intentionally. And btw, the contributions actually start on the previous page, so this is not the sum total of them.
There is no mistaking the intent of the firefighters, and they do not stop there. They also have an independent expenditure piece that is walked and mailed with their endorsed candidates on them.
What the firefighters have done is learned how to use their numbers and organizational power to create a disproportionate influence on the process. There is no other union in the city that operates in this manner. In fact, we have not seen another example of this type of organization in any of the comparable cities either.
As the Vanguard presented in its mailer, there are consequences for these practices. Firefighter backed candidates have won 7 of the last 9 seats on council with only Sue Greenwald in 2008 and Lamar Heystek in 2006 as exceptions. Firefighters received the largest increase in salary and benefits back in 2005, 36% salary increase over four years. That pales in comparison with their police counterparts who received a more modest 16% increase over four years, which is barely above the 3% annual inflation rate. In comparable positions, firefighter union members make 20% more than their police counterparts, but in non-union positions, police and fire make identical salaries.
Is that all an accident? Can a candidate be all inclusive when they get a block of $4000 in contributions from one group? Can they then turn around and tell the firefighters no? Apparently Sue Greenwald can, but no one else has done it.
I am sorry Mr. Dunning, I respect your view, but I just see a vast difference between taking money from a homeowner who might indirectly benefit from certain land use policies on his individual home and taking a block of money from city employees who are clearly attempting to maximize their leverage on the political process. And while it is true that you can argue that no one solely makes a decision based on contributions, it has to be a factor, it just has to be.
And it certainly is the appearance of a factor when you have a perfect synergy between endorsement and vote.
We need a clean process and I call on the other candidates to follow the lead of Joe Krovoza and just say no. Let the citizens of Davis and not interested city employees decide the future of this community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Good piece, David. We already know how to address this problem although it is not the perfect solution. DISTRICT ELECTIONS. Campaign contributions would lose most of their power as an election campaign could be successful with a fraction of the $30-5.000 now spent by many of the winning candidates. In district elections, a candidate can mobilize enough grassroots support to knock on every door in their district. This kind of neighbor to neighbor contact/political discussion is what is most powerful in Davis local elections. A recent random mailing survery revealed strong voter majority support for the district election concept. when will our Council seriously take up this district election concept?
As the late Jesse Unruh said,“If you can’t take their money, drink their liquor, … and then come in here the next day and vote against them, you d
don’t belong here.”
davisite2-District elections may not be the best answer, ask anyone who lived in North Sacramento before incorporation into the city. Council persons from wealthier districts tend to ignore the needs of their poorer colleagues.
Todays Bee has an article about the biggest contributor to campaigns , its the California teachers . Why would these college educated teachers with degrees be giving so much money to campaigns ? I wonder how many teachers and professors there are in California ?
Anyone who believes in less government or honest government or anyone who thinks profits should be the result of the free market ought to favor the public financing of election campaigns and a constitutional change to outlaw privately financed campaigns.
The result of private financing is always anti-competitive and brings us more, bigger, bloated and expensive government and it is against the general interest, whether the money comes from public employee unions or so-called private companies (like defense contractors) which make their fortunes selling to the government or narrow special interests (like rice farmers or railroads) or companies in highly regulated industries (like broadcast media or fishing) which write laws to insure their profits and keep out competition.
Many years ago, I worked in the fishing industry in Alaska as a deck-hand on a salmon seiner. I learned a lot about the power of private money in election campaigns.
I think it was 1987. My boss, who owned the vessel, told all of us nobodies who worked on his boat that if we wanted to keep our jobs we had to contribute $1,000 each to a commercial fisherman’s PAC, and he would later give us back our money in cash. We all did.
What I learned later was why that was so important: there was a deregulation bill in Congress being pushed by the Reagan Administration which would have opened up commercial fishing licenses in Alaska. As it was, there were a small number of boat operators (and some non-operator investors) who owned the limited number of fishing licenses. They had all bought them for 50 cents or a dollar 25 or more years earlier. Then, using their political muscle in the 1960s (under the phony guise of stopping overfishing), they had the government stop issuing any new licenses. If someone wanted a license to fish, he had to buy his from an existing license holder. In time, these $1 licenses became worth tens of thousands of dollars. By the late 1980s, a license which was essentiall given away for free by the government would sell at auction for $500,000. (I imagine today it is 4-5 times that.) The licenses excluded new entry into the industry and gave a great advantage to the sons of fisherman, who usually inherited their fathers’ licenses.
The Reagan idea was to put an expiration date on the licenses and then have an auction every 8 years in which fishermen would bid a new 8-year license and the money would go to pay for Fish & Game and the Coast Guard, both of which play a big role in regulating fishing.
Needless to say, the fishermen with the licenses got all up in arms, raised millions of dollars, poured money into the pockets of key members of Congress, and killed that aspect of the bill.
The same thing happened around that time, by the way, with TV licenses, though I don’t think it was in the same bill as the fishing bill. That is, there was a proposal to have broadcasters’ licenses expire at some point and auction off new licenses every so many years. That would have raised billions of dollars for the government. But it, too, was killed by privately financed campaigns.
I forgot to state the dollar amount it’s $ 211.9 Million for last year .
[quote]Council persons from wealthier districts tend to ignore the needs of their poorer colleagues. [/quote]
At least the poorer district has a representative. With at-large elections, the groups with less spending power may be ignored by every representative.
In Davis, it’s usually not a district vs. district situation, anyway. More often, the issue is that groups who stand to gain or lose significant earning or profit potential as a result of Council decisions are far more motivated to spend big on elections than are everyday citizens who don’t work for the City, and are not involved in businesses whose profitability is affected by Council decisions.
Jesse Unruh was right. How many of our current Council members are truly able to take the money of donor groups or enjoy the independent expenditures of PACs and then vote against them? They know what will happen when the next election rolls around.
I’d like to hear the other candidates adopt Joe Krovoza’s pledge, and then truly stick to both the letter and spirit of it. That includes independent expenditures and donations made AFTER the election.
Rifkin is correct, public financing is an important step to ending purchased influence. Although, there must also be a prohibition on private expenditures and any kind of gifts or favors. For Davis elections, public funding would not need to be large. One mailer per candidate should be sufficient and would be a welcome relief. That, in addition to the usual candidates’ forums, would allow candidates to get their message out.
“District elections may not be the best answer, ask anyone who lived in North Sacramento before incorporation into the city. Council persons from wealthier districts tend to ignore the needs of their poorer colleagues.”
Bidden: I didn’t say that it was the best answer but it is the one that is doable in Davis and would be a significant improvement over the current situation. Drawing the District boundaries to,as much as possible, create a mixed constituency would deal with your second issue, albeit, not totally.
Council persons from wealthier districts tend to ignore the needs of their poorer colleagues.
— At least the poorer district has a representative.
Indeed. Quick: how many council members have been from East Davis?
[i]”Quick: how many council members have been from East Davis?”[/i]
None in recent years.
The following is a list of all members of the DCC since 1980. I include where I think they live or lived when they were on the council. People who moved afterward, such as Partansky, get listed in the place they lived when on the council. Some are just guesses. For example, I don’t know where Judge Stevens lived when he was on the council. I know he lived in West Davis (east of 113) in the 1960s and later moved to South Davis, but I don’t know where he resided as a member of the council:
Stevens, James L Jr. 03/20/1974 – 06/20/1984 SOUTH
Tomasi, Thomas J 03/20/1974 – 06/20/1986 ???
Kopper, William D 03/20/1976 – 06/20/1984 NORTH
Motley, Sandy 03/20/1976 – 04/20/1984 ???
Farrell, Richard 11/20/1978 – 04/20/1980 W. CENTRAL
Adler, Gerald 04/20/1980 – 06/20/1992 W. CENTRAL
Evans, Ann 06/20/1982 – 06/20/1990 N. CENTRAL
Nichols-Poulos, Deborah 06/20/1984 – 06/20/1988 WEST
Rosenburg, David 06/20/1984 – 06/20/1996 N. WEST
Corbett, Michael 06/20/1986 – 06/20/1990 WEST
Skinner, Maynard 06/20/1988 – 06/20/1994 CORE
Boyd, Susie 06/20/1990 – 06/20/1994 NORTH
Wolk, Lois 06/20/1990 – 04/10/1998 W. CENTRAL
Partansky, Julie 06/20/1992 – 04/10/2000 CORE
Forbes, Stan 04/20/1996 – 06/20/2000 ???
Kaneko, Jerry 04/20/1996 – 06/20/1998 N. CENTRAL
Boyd, Susie 06/20/1996 – 03/23/2004 NORTH
Freeman, Sheryl 06/20/1998 – 04/20/2002 WEST
Wagstaff, Ken 06/20/1998 – 04/20/2002 W. CENTRAL
Greenwald, Sue 04/20/2000 – presentCORE
Harrington, Michael 04/20/2000 – 03/23/2004 CORE
Asmundson, Ruth 04/10/2002 – presentCENTRAL
Puntillo, Ted 04/10/2002 – 04/10/2006 SOUTH
Saylor, Don 03/30/2004 – presentW. CENTRAL
Souza, Stephen 03/30/2004 – presentWILDHORSE
Heystek, Lamar 06/20/2006 – presentSOUTH
Stan Forbes was W. Central. South Davis has barely been represented over the years (and it shows…) and East Davis not at all.
Yes Don
South Davis has much of the commerce not wanted in other parts and little of the commercial charm.
SODA aka SOuth DAvis
Hey, David. Have you invited anyone from the fire department to post a guest commentary on their contributions to council members? I wonder if any of them have the courage…
Given that only 5 out of the 35 firefighters listed live in Davis, it is no wonder they don’t care if their platinum labor agreement bankrupts Davis. The last time Souza was running for re-election I went to a neighborhood “meet and discuss the issues with Steve Souza” event. I asked him some very direct questions about the firefighters benefits and their claim that we need another fire station. He was very clear in his overwhelming support for anything the firefighters wanted including more staff,a new fire station, and saw nothing wrong with their benefits. I am certain that if elected, Vergis will give the firefighters that and a lot more.
Dear Rich:
Thank you for the useful chart.
Tomasi, Reed
Motley, Villanova
Forbes, Redwood
All in Central Davis
It seems like Central Davis (including the core area) has been over the last 30 years overrepresented. I don’t know why that is. However, maybe it is the case that people who live on the periphery of Davis are less involved in Davis as a community and feel less involved with Davis because maybe they are more likely to work out of town?
I don’t think money explains it, as the richest parts of town are all elsewhere. Another possible factor is demographics: maybe the newer parts of town have more young families with kids and thus don’t have the time to run for office?
This is a very good article Vanguard and thanks for all of this revealing data. So basically the Davis firefighters have been pouring tens of thousands of dollars into basically “swinging” City Council races their way for at least a decade or two. BUT THE MAJORITY OF THESE “DAVIS” FIREFIGHTERS DO NOT EVEN LIVE IN DAVIS! These firefighters live outside of Davis, yet they get to control our city elections with their big bucks donations to buy their favorite Council members candidates a seat on Council at election time.
I’ve seen firefighters distributing tons of literature throughout the city during City Council elections for a number of years. At one time they were using the downtown fire station to co-ordinate the literature distribution for their candidates!
The firefighters who do not live in Davis should be banned from contributing to these campaigns. No wonder these firefighters have been getting the ridiculous six figure salaries and outrageously generous benefits contracts voted in by the City Council majority. The firefighters obviously just buy their votes for their contracts from the Council majority that they get voted in with their “firefighter’s super-funding”!
Davis epiphany-Outside contributions have become the norm in elections. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints made contributions of more than $189,000 to proponents of Proposition 8. Many others do the same. I can think of no way, short of public financing, to bar such kibitzers, that would not limit those with legitimate standing from making contributions. I can think of few politicians who would voluntarily give up that much money.
I think in this case public disclosure is better than prohibition.
The firefighting should be privatized, and the police should be contracted to the sheriff office.
Saylor and others pander to these well heeled interests and it has broken the bank.. good luck with your city budget..
Reality will be a ‘bitch’