Council needs to reform Hudson’s campaign finance law
This week, I brought forward legislation that would replace our current ordinance related to campaign finance.
I ran 2 years in a row, and had to raise money to fund my campaign both years. Therefore, I have become very familiar with the current ordinance regulating campaign finance. For context, the current ordinance limits contributions to $100/person.
Here are some issues with the ordinance as it is currently written:
Because the current limit on donations is so low, raising the necessary funds to run a competitive campaign is difficult to do. Candidates have to raise anywhere from $5-15k in $100 increments. Note: The amount needed to run a competitive campaign varies depending on whether you are running in a ward or city-wide (at-large or Mayor).
Because raising the necessary funds is difficult and time consuming, even for the well-connected, our current ordinance dissuades anyone from running who cannot self-finance. This especially impacts younger candidates. We should not have an ordinance in place that leads to only those wealthy enough to afford to run representing us in our local government (or any level of government). Government works best when it truly represents the people, and this prevents us from achieving that.
Because there is no clear penalty outlined within the ordinance, the penalty is defined under by 202.99 GENERAL PENALTY in our codified ordinances, which states that infractions of our campaign finance law is, “deemed a minor misdemeanor and the offender shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each offense.” The penalty not being defined within the ordinance has led to some people incorrectly assuming there is no penalty for violating the current ordinance.
The fine for violating the ordinance is only $100 – this penalty is not severe enough to deter anyone from violating the current ordinance. Example: Let’s say a candidate accepts a donation of $1,000, which is 10x the legal limit. Even after the $100 fine, they still end up with $900 in their campaign account while a candidate who chose to abide by the law only has $100 in their campaign account. This gives the candidate who broke the law a financial advantage.
Because no means for enforcement is clearly outlined within the current ordinance, enforcement has become politicized, and as a result has been virtually nonexistent. Many people assume the Summit County Board of Elections would be responsible for enforcement, but that is not the case. They do not enforce ordinances specific to municipalities, the responsibility to regulate and enforce ordinances like this is on that municipality. In the 2021 at-large city council races, one of the candidates who ran intentionally and knowingly accepted a donation over the limit our current ordinance allows. When a citizen reported it to the City Prosecutor (cc’ing our City Manager, the full Council, the Mayor, and the press) urging them to address the matter, nothing was done about the infraction and the press opted not to cover what is certainly a bigger issue facing elections in Hudson. I think it is unfortunate that the City chose not to address the issue just to avoid the optics of what would certainly be perceived as a political enforcement of a law (this is strictly my opinion and not substantiated in any way). Why have a law in place if you have no intention of enforcing it?
The overall language of the current ordinance is vague and slightly confusing. I believe that this has caused many candidates who are otherwise law-abiding and who have good intentions to unknowingly break this law.
In addition to these 6 issues I have outlined, this ordinance as it currently is written has led to some unintended consequences. Because it is so difficult for some candidates to raise the necessary funds themselves, we have seen people come up with some creative ways to circumvent the ordinance. The most common way people get around this ordinance is to start a Club, PAC or even a Super PAC to accept donations in larger sums and to then pay for some of the more expensive campaign needs, such as direct mail or advertising. The ordinance, as it currently reads, states that the purpose of it is to, "…demonstrate and promote ethics by government within the City of Hudson; to further integrity in campaigns for public office; to prevent corruption and/or the appearance of corruption; and to restore and enhance the faith of the citizenry in government…” It is my opinion that if this is the purpose of the ordinance, then it has failed, because all it has resulted in is more outside interference in our elections. This benefits candidates who accept help from and are part of the larger political machine so many Americans have come to distrust, and hurts candidates who want to do things the old-fashioned way and have a campaign finance report that reflects those they hope to represent.
This is a good time also to clarify my position on PACs and the support outside organizations provide. I don’t dislike PACs. I don’t dislike or have a problem with PAC donations. I dislike covert attempts to influence elections. PACs often get a bad rap because of their distant cousin, the Super PAC, but PACs are commonly used in communities all the time. Very often, if a candidate applies for and accepts an endorsement from an organization or PAC, they will donate to the candidate. I think this is perfectly above board, because a candidate who accepts a donation from a PAC is required to report it on their finance report. Voters can then acknowledge this support and endorsement, and it is another level of information that voters can use when deciding who to vote for. Endorsements are public by nature, often with a requirement to list the endorsement in certain places (like your website, for example) following acceptance of the endorsement. Anything that is done in such a public way speaks to intent, and displays that the candidate has no problem with accountability.
What I outlined above is very different from what we saw happen in 2021.
In the 2021 at-large city council race, a Super PAC was formed and began to spend money AFTER the pre-general filing date – meaning, no one could see who the donors to this Super PAC were until well after the election. This Super PAC paid for several direct mail postcards to benefit three candidates, and two negative smear postcards against me. In total, I counted 9 different postcards that were sent out, very often city-wide. By a reasonable estimate, the cost of one mailing to the entire city of Hudson ranges between $7-10k. In addition to direct mail, this Super PAC also paid for digital advertising. You do the math, but to me, it looks like a Super PAC spent somewhere between $75-100k on our city council election! I anxiously await the finance reports that the Super PAC is required to file at the end of this month.
In my opinion, there are many issues with this, but here are two of them:
When an organization like this is formed to spend in a campaign, it is difficult to directly tie it to a candidate and make inferences about the candidate’s intent. For example, there is transparency in a candidate accepting a $100 donation from a PAC following an endorsement, but no transparency to voters if a Super PAC spends independently to benefit a candidate’s campaign. A candidate does not have to list these expenditures made by other organizations if they had no knowledge of or coordination with that organization. This results in voters often not having information that is very important to have, because who would think to check if a Super PAC is spending tens of thousands to influence a small, local election?
This is acknowledgement that the $100 limit creates barriers, because it has resulted in the formation of these organizations to raise and spend money in ways candidates currently cannot. As I have previously outlined for you, this reduces accountability and transparency in the campaign finances of those representing you.
Since some of this information has become more prevalent following this past November’s general election, and after learning it, some residents have told me that they feel duped. The were sent information put out by a Super PAC, and now they wonder if they made the right decision when they voted.
Maybe I just need to get with the program. Maybe this is just how elections are going to be from now on! If that’s the case, then it is even more reason for us to review this issue and reform the current ordinance.
These issues and unintended consequences I have outlined are, for the most part, non-issues in bigger races where the moving parts of larger campaigns require more of everything, and I believe that is an important distinction to make. Larger campaigns are inherently different in many ways. But what the residents of Hudson have said is that they don’t like what our small town’s campaigns for local office have become. That is absolutely fair.
Above, I have listed 6 issues that I see with our current ordinance and described how it has also led to very serious unintended consequences. It is clear to me that it is time to reform or replace this ordinance.
The options Council has are to either reform the ordinance, or repeal it altogether.
If Council chooses to continue to reform this ordinance, I believe below is a list of things Council needs to take into consideration:
A clear penalty that deters candidates from knowingly breaking the law needs to be clearly outlined within the ordinance.
We need to take the politics out of enforcement. Whatever law we put into place should not be able to be weaponized against someone, but more importantly, there should never be any hesitation to enforce. I believe that enabling City staff to hire a neutral, third-party special prosecutor to examine violations is the best way to ensure this.
If we are going to have this law in place at all, we need to commit to enforcement.
Consideration of the limit on donations should be thought through so that we are not unintentionally limiting the pool of people who can run to only those wealthy enough to pay for it out-of-pocket. It has become clear that the limit of $100 is prohibitive to many candidates. I would like to address this before the 2023 ward races so that no resident feels they cannot run because the financial aspect of running is a barrier to them.
Consideration that lower limits on donations actually encourages outside interference in elections.
So, back to this past Tuesday when I brought forth legislation to reform the Ordinance 226.01.
I won’t go into every single detail of the legislation I proposed because I always intended it to be a starting point for Council to work off of, and I expect it to change.
The general feedback from my peers was mixed. I had hoped that Council would collaborate on this and work together to find a solution, but instead I was generally dismissed by our Council president. Many on Council stated some of the same concerns I listed above and acknowledged the more problematic aspects of the ordinance, which is why I was left feeling so confused that certain other members were so dismissive.
One piece of feedback I heard was that some on Council are interested in regulating campaign finances by capping the total amount a candidate can spend in their race. To me, this seems like a good way to give these Clubs, PACs and Super PACs more power and influence, since the finance regulations would not apply to them and they could just spend, spend, spend even after a candidate can no longer do so. This is a clear attempt to support what has become the primary strategy for winning elections in Hudson. That is a hard no for me.
I believe that the issue of campaign finance regulation is important for Council to address, and we have a duty to do something and in a timely manner. Therefore, I requested with our Clerk of Council (which I have every right to do per our Council rules) that this be placed on the agenda for the customary three readings starting on 2/1. My colleagues on Council can vote no on it if they wish, but I believe that sends a message to voters and it’s not a good one.
Two of my colleagues on Council have stepped up and agreed to contribute to this legislation and collaborate with me on a new draft for Council to review. I look forward to working with Kate Schlademan and Chris Banweg to find a solution we believe Council could support.
More important than collaboration amongst council members is hearing from all of you! Voters of Hudson, please reach out to me and all the other members of Council to let them know what you think. This directly affects each and every one of you because it impacts the elections that decide who will make important decisions in our community.
Follow my Facebook and Twitter for frequent updates!
Have questions? Want to share your thoughts with me on any of the agenda items or issues listed above? As always, I would love to have a conversation! Email me directly at nkowalski@hudson.oh.us.
