City must not tolerate Chicago-style financing

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is receiving a lot attention after an investigation by the Chicago Tribune found that more than 60percent of the millions raised for his re-election bid come from vendors to the city.

While it may not be shocking news to the people of Fort Wayne that there are foul winds blowing from the Chicago city hall, it may be surprising that the situation is not different here. An analysis conducted by the Indiana Policy Review of the mayor’s campaign finance filings and the check register of the City of Fort Wayne reveals the same pattern here in the City of Churches.

In the four years leading up to the 2015 municipal election, we find that more than 50 vendors, contractors or beneficiaries of contracts with the city made about $1 million in campaign contributions that subsequently resulted in the awarding of more than $125 million in contracts. The $1 million raised from vendors equals about two-thirds of the $1.5 million the mayor raised in that time period. The contributors were civil engineers, architects, insurance companies, auto dealers and attorneys.

The two largest categories were engineering and legal services, totaling more than $800,000 between the two. Linear regression analysis of campaign contributions and payments from the city in these categories yielded an r-square value (a measure of correlation) of 90 percent for attorneys and 59 percent for civil engineers. One can interpret that to mean there is a statistically high probability that the more a firm contributes to the campaign fund, the more it can expect in city contract dollars.

As a city councilman, I have a responsibility to do what I can to limit the ability of any mayor’s administration to use the operations of the city as a fundraising apparatus. To that end, I have submitted an ordinance to prevent the city from contracting with vendors that have made substantial campaign contributions.

This amendment to the city’s bidding process ordinance simply eliminates any entity from bidding on contracts with the city if it or its officers, key employees or relatives of key employees make campaign contributions in excess of $2,700 in aggregate in any year after 2017.

It is critical to include officers and key employees in the amendment because of the level of obfuscation that goes on in the world of municipal campaign finance. For instance, in studying the contributions in the public filings, you’ll find people contributing from Denver; Columbus, Ohio; and perhaps Dover, Delaware, or Madison, Wisconsin; for amounts of less than $1,000, maybe three times a year for four years.

Upon further investigation using public sources, we find that these people all work for the same multinational civil engineering firm that intends to bid on work related to a large sewer project. What are the chances that an engineer in Overland Park, Kansas, gives a hoot who the mayor of Fort Wayne is?

City Council has a chance to eliminate the opportunity for malfeasance. This ordinance would not restrict people’s constitutionally protected right to political speech but would instead regulate the bidding process. You can contribute as much as you like, you just won’t be able to bid on work for the city.

Eliminating the practice of paying for access will free contractors from the burden of participating in funding campaigns. Allowing for a more diversified pool of bidders could lower the cost of doing business for taxpayers.

Unlike Chicago, the voters of Fort Wayne have selected a majority of City Council members of the opposite party of the mayor. The Windy City electorate may expect some corruption in their city government, but I suspect the people of Fort Wayne demand better.