Campaign Finance Reform Defeated In University City

UNIVERSITY CITY, MO — Squabbling and finger-pointing derailed a debate on campaign finance at a University City council meeting Monday night. Proponents said Resolution 2018-2 was necessary to ensure transparency and trust in government, while detractors said the resolution was hurriedly-written, flush with unintended consequences, and wouldn't pass legal muster. Supported by two outgoing councilmen and the outgoing mayor, many also said the resolution appeared politically motivated.

Mayor Shelley Welsh defended the resolution, saying that she thought it was in the best interest of University City taxpayers. "This community has led in the past on many other issues – like curbside recycling, and outlawing housing discrimination, and home inspections, and an occupancy permit system, to name a few. I ask my Council colleagues for their support of this resolution, and lead the way for a better, more transparent campaign finance environment in the St. Louis region.

"We all want government by the people and for the people. I believe this resolution will help our democracy here in University City."

But, several of her colleagues weren't convinced.

First-ward councilman Steve McMahon made a reductio ad absurdum case against the resolution, arguing that it could potentially disqualify all U-City residents from making political contributions or prevent the council from doing any business at all. McMahon said he believes conflict of interest is a personal issue, separate from campaign finance, and that it requires personal integrity to take money from a donor and not let it change the way a councilmember thinks or votes. He also criticized the resolution's lack of concrete definitions. "What does the term 'vote that involves' mean?" he asked. "That seems really vague."

Second-ward councilwoman Paulette Carr opposed the resolution on more ideological grounds. "I agree that campaign donations are a form of free speech," she said, citing a 2010 Supreme Court decision commonly called Citizens United.

Third-ward councilman Bwayne Smotherson said the resolution was "dead upon arrival," while first-ward councilman and unopposed mayoral candidate Terry Crow called the resolution "not ready for prime time."

All four voted to indefinitely postpone the resolution, effectively killing it.

The impetus for the resolution was research presented last month by a homegrown ethics watchdog group led by two local residents, James Bashkin and Irv Logan. The so-called Bashkin-Logan report claimed to show potential conflicts of interest involving several council members, two U-City landlords and political action committees associated with a local firefighters union.

The councilmembers named in the report responded by pointing out their opponents' own questionable campaign donations and accusing them of trying to tie the hands of the next council by changing the rules in the middle of the game. Crow and others in the majority challenged anyone to point to a specific vote that had been influenced by campaign donations, while McMahon demanded to know if the outgoing councilmembers had comported themselves in accordance with their proposed resolution.

"You want to talk, we can go to Starbucks," Glickert said during one heated exchange, refusing to answer McMahon's pointed question.

Caught in the middle were citizens who said they support the spirit of the resolution, though not necessarily the current language. "I have to admit that I don't get here to every council meeting, but I do want to express my appreciation to everybody who has taken the time and effort to represent our city," said U-City resident Nancy Baglan. "I did, though, expect that when I came the council would have a very thoughtful discussion on the merits of this resolution. That's particularly why I came tonight — to say that I support this resolution or something very similar. Because I believe transparency in government is a good thing."

Baglan said she supports taking more time to weigh the merits of the resolution, but was disappointed in the tone of the current discussions. "I have to say, I am surprised that there's been so much discussion that's had such a personal tone to it, calling into question the motives of other council people, and so many comments about what's happened in past campaigns. I don't really need to hear all of that. This is a resolution for our future."

She called for a new or amended resolution that all councilmembers can agree on.

Crow seemed receptive. Though he gave no timeline for it and did not include the idea in his motion to postpone the resolution, he called for a citizen task force to look into campaign finance issues and garner citizen feedback. He called campaign finance a "big deal" and said he understands citizens' concerns, but called it hypocrisy for councilmembers to propose legislation that will not apply to them in their last months on the council.

"It's important for everyone in this room to realize, there are as many people who are not supporting this resolution in the comments as who were supporting it. So it's not like this is a drop kick for anybody," Crow said. "People are saying to us, 'We should follow the spirit of the resolution.' But we don't get to follow the spirit of the resolution, we have to follow what's in front of us. And this resolution is the single worst drafted resolution I have seen in 10 years."

The mayor challenged Crow's assertion, saying that the council was provided with background information 10 days prior to the meeting and no one had shared concerns or asked her to delay introducing the resolution. "I also want to point out, no amendments were offered last night...in response to the concerns raised, some of which in my opinion were absurd."

Smotherson said the resolution wasn't necessary and denied the influence of money in U-City politics. "There is no strangle hold," he said. He called the resolution political ammunition for councilmembers who aren't seeking reelection and said it was "based on the misleading statements about potential — potential — decisions that haven't been made and potential conflicts of interest that don't exist."

"The issue of large contributions and nasty campaigns will be moot — meaning, a matter of no importance — after April 3," Smotherson said, meaning the date his opponents will no longer serve on the council.

This story has been updated with comments from University City Mayor Shelley Welsch.

Photo by J. Ryne Danielson/Patch