12 February 2009 - 17:14My letter concerning KS HB 2244
During my lunch reading on BoingBoing, I came across an article concerning a bill in the Kansas house of representatives that affects campaign contributions and indeed seems specifically aimed at, conveniently enough, the challenger of the rep who’s sponsoring it. Sean Tevis ran against this representative, Scott Schwab (R) Olathe, collected a bunch of money, netroots-style and nearly pulled off an upset. Now he wants to quash this innovative means of raising funds by essentially holding the small donors’ information out there for potential publication.
I can’t vote, but I can write my rep, which is what I did. Here’s the text of the letter, with minor redactions. I copied Sean on this. Hopefully, it’s ok that I put it up here.
Dear Ms. *,
I would like to express my concern about a bill currently in the House, HB 2244, regarding campaign donations. It may interest you to know that the bill’s sponsor, Scott Schwab (R) of Olathe, faced a competitive race in November against Sean Tevis. Mr. Tevis utilized his understanding of technology to mount a successful web-based fund-raising campaign. He was able to collect a large number of small donations to help in his run for the seat. The bill being sponsored by Mr. Schwab is clearly aimed at discouraging such innovative uses of technology. Accepting that, as an incumbent, he has an interest doing what he can to shore up his strategic position, including weakening the base of support of his prospective rival, I still find the nature of the bill to be cynical and unfair. Mr. Tevis has outlined his reasons for opposing the bill in a blog post at:
http://seantevis.com/weblog/story/my-response-to-house-bill-no-2244-aka-the-sean-tevis-bill/
The main point of his argument is that the arbitrary cut-off of $1000 creates a situation where individuals who give a small amount, with an accompanying understanding of having a small entitlement to access, would be subject to having their donations made public should the candidate be successful in fund-raising and rise above the threshold. Having thresholds on individual campaign donations makes sense, because the donor would understand the point at which their donation becomes part of the public record. The situation presented by the bill under consideration, however, gives no such clear-cut assurances.
It is my sincere hope that you will take this argument into consideration and do what you can work against HB 2244.
In the interest of disclosure, I would like to say that while I am a resident in your district, I am not a voting constituent, as I am a Resident Alien. I have lived in this district with my wife and family for 12 years.
Respectfully,
Robert C*
Edit: here’s a link to the text of the bill:
http://seantevis.com/images/uploads/hb2244-big.gif
17 Feb 2009 - 9:44
Actually, Sean ran against Arlen Seigfried. And the bill does not prohibit what tevis did, it just prevents people from lying on their report and claiming they did it too. You should read the bill.
17 Feb 2009 - 18:10
Yep. (re-) Read the bill. I believe the original point stands, although I see what you’re driving at. I never said or read that the bill would prohibit what he did. It just seems specifically aimed at fund-raising efforts that that are able to cast a wide net for small donations. Nothing in the bill stops anyone from lying about it. As it is, nothing stops them now, except for (ethical behavior and) the fear of getting caught and typically, getting caught means an investigation that turns up irregularity. I admit I’m no expert on campaign finance law enforcement or the nature of investigations into wrong-doing, however I would expect that there is a level of respect for a campaign’s proprietary information, including the identities its legitimate small-sum donors. If there needs to be a threshold, why does that threshold require the disclosure of those donors as part of the public record? The bill does not stipulate that the donor list be made public, but neither does it say that it is to remain private. Indeed, correct me if I’m wrong, but does not the act of filing the report with the office of Secretary of State render it part of the public record? I still agree with Mr. Tevis’ original disagreement with this bill and while I take your point, I think the language of the bill could be more clearly worded to respect the (relatively modest) expectation of privacy on the part of those small-sum donors.
And yes, I found that Tevis’ opponent was Arlen Siegfried, not Scott Schwab, as I had said. My apologies for that error. It does seem pretty cozy, though, that one Olathe Republican would introduce the bill that looks pretty squarely aimed at the opponent of another Olathe Republican. It’s like they might know each other.
Nothing wrong with it, per se. I’m not dumb enough to think that’s not the way the game gets played. Just sayin’