Who really benefits from Wichita City Council’s push for corporate campaign money? | Opinion

Campaign finance and child pornography.

You wouldn’t think those two topics would have much in common, but there is an interesting commonality that arises from the Wichita City Council’s effort to open local campaign finance contributions to corporations.

First, a little background, then we’ll get to the child pornography.

The council has scheduled a public hearing Tuesday on its proposal to re-legalize local campaign finance contributions from corporations.

A few weeks back, the council, under the leadership of lame-duck Mayor Brandon Whipple, outlawed corporate campaign contributions, which were legalized by the council in 2015 when the body was led by his predecessor, former Mayor Jeff Longwell.

Whipple’s move was derided by the three new incoming council members, who immediately tried to pass a measure to reverse it. The Council put off a final decision to allow public input before its March meeting.

The argument to allow corporate contributions goes something like this: Businesses should be allowed to influence elections by making campaign contributions, just like individuals do. That strange logic ignores the fact that businesses can’t vote, and only individuals have that constitutional right.

A business owner can make the maximum $500 contribution, but the change advocated by the post-Whipple regime would allow an individual to make multiple $500 contributions, all under various corporate identities. If you glance at past campaign finance reports before the Whipple change, you’ll see numerous $500 contributions from the same addresses, only differing by the corporate name.

Prior to the August primary, an executive with JP Weigand Realtors sent an email to selected donors, encouraging them to support candidate Lily Wu by making donations under multiple identities.

“Individuals and entities may contribute up to $500. Several people I know are giving from more than one entity,” the email read.

So where does child pornography come into the picture?

Stay with me, I’m getting to it.

When the council conducted its first public hearing on reopening campaign finance to corporations, various proponents came forward to say what a good idea it was. They included what I would call “water carriers”, namely, the local home builders executive and a spokesperson for the Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce.

Notably absent from the speakers list were any of the specific individuals who make multiple $500 donations under various corporate names. The water carriers cautiously avoided saying anything about those folks.

They also didn’t explain that the bigger the donation, the bigger the impact on the election. Or that a big donation also guarantees the donor’s phone calls will be dutifully answered by the recipient once he or she gains office.

Here’s the parallel to child pornography: Imagine that the council conducted a public hearing on a proposal to legalize child porn. Opponents would come out of the woodwork — clergy, educators, parents, child psychologists, and just about any clear-thinking citizen would rally against it.

And guess who wouldn’t show up to advocate for the change? Why, the child pornographers, of course. Much as they like child pornography, they wouldn’t want to be publicly identified with it.

Similar to the child pornographer, none of the individuals who are making multiple campaign finance contributions came to the microphone to defend the practice and explain why they deserve a disproportionate influence over local elections. Notably absent was the Weigand executive, who brazenly endorsed the practice in his email to potential donors.

It’s hard to picture any of the prominent local developers coming forward in person and saying publicly, “Yeah, I want to bundle multiple campaign donations so I can legally exceed the $500 limit. And I do it so I can have greater influence than those poor schmucks who can only donate a single $500.”

Why wouldn’t they come forward? Because they know the public generally thinks it is unfair to give a disproportionate advantage to wealthy donors so they can dictate the outcome of an election.

When the council conducts its public hearing Tuesday, don’t hold your breath waiting for the multiple-donation individuals to flock to the microphone to say why they like this change.

They’ll be cowering in the background, while the water carriers like the home builders and Chamber try to make this sound like something other than campaign pornography.

The moral of the story: If the primary beneficiaries of a policy change aren’t willing to speak out publicly in favor of it, it likely is a really bad policy change.

This story was originally published March 4, 2024 at 9:46 AM.