Who's your PAC?

One from the weekend I didn't get to, another entry in the "Let's play with the new searchable online campaign finance disclosure forms for city candidates" files.

About one in 10 campaign contributions to elected city officials this year came from corporate political action committees, law firms and other groups, some with business interests at City Hall, according to a review of campaign data.

Since February, when local candidates began fundraising for the November election, groups have given more than 400 contributions, totaling at least $630,000, to Mayor Bill White, council members and Controller Annise Parker.

The donations represent more than 15 percent of the nearly $4 million raised during the first required reporting period this year, which ended June 30, according to the campaign records.

The top donors from this group include the Houston Council of Engineering Companies PAC, which represents firms seeking municipal work; Locke, Liddell & Sapp, LLP, a law firm that provides professional services to the city but also lobbies on behalf of its $2 billion municipal pension fund; and Continental Airlines, which pays millions annually to the city in terminal fees and depends on publicly financed infrastructure at George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

Elected officials, donors and political observers offered different reasons for why such groups contribute.

None of those interviewed suggested municipal contracts were given based on campaign donations. Some said the groups simply were participating in politics and supporting like-minded candidates, much like individual donors. But others see a coordinated investment by the groups to protect their interests and maintain access to elected officials.

"It's not any burning desire for good government," said Richard Murray, a political science professor at the University of Houston, of the motivation to donate. "It's the grease that makes the governmental gears keep churning along."

Donations from PACs and law firms aren't new, but their scale is more obvious after the city this election cycle began requiring candidates to file their donation and expenditure reports electronically, allowing searching and sorting that isn't possible with paper reports.

I'm glad this is more transparent. That's one reason why this stuff should have been easily accessible online well before now. More information is always better. In this case, I don't think it tells us much of anything we didn't already know - who else would you have thought would be the big givers to city officials, if you didn't have the data in front of you? Now that we do know this much, the next questions to ask are "why are you guys giving all that money in the first place?" (one answer is here), and "is there any connection between a donor/recipient combination and a vote/contract/whatnot that might not have happened had someone who wasn't a recipient of that donor's largesse been elected?" That's a much tougher nut to crack, of course, and it's entirely possible there's nothing there to find. But it's worth pursuing, if for no better reason than to make sure everyone knows it will be pursued.

And if any of this leads to a conversation about how we can put more integrity into the system, that's a good thing, too. Contribution limits on PACs? More detailed reporting on donations and expenditures by candidates? Stricter rules about conflict-of-interest and the like? I'm more than happy to take part in that kind of talk. Bring it on.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on July 23, 2007 to Local politics