What's Wrong with "Behested" Payments to Charity? (Part I)

There was an interesting article in yesterday's L.A. Times regarding something the left coasters call "behested payments."  On the right coast, the practice is probably more often referred to as "pay to play."  Anyway, yesterday's L.A. Times article described left coast politicians' habit and history of soliciting charitable donations to their favored causes.  Sounds ok so far.  "These payments are not considered campaign contributions or gifts," the state's political watchdog explains, "but are payments made at the 'behest' of elected officials to be used for legislative, governmental or charitable purposes."  The more sinister implication is that the donors are doing two bad things.  First, they are avoiding campaign donation limitations by steering campaign contributions to a candidate's favorite charity, through which the candidate receives some sort of implicit benefit associated with the donation.  Secondly, the donor is buying access to city hall.  Los Angeles Councilman Mitchell Englander has caused many a donor to contribute, at Councilman Englander's "behest," to a charity at whose well attended events Councilman Englander is a frequent and featured guest speaker.  For federal tax purposes the implication is that in exchange for benefitting from a politician's fundraising prowess, charities are providing focused and featured face-time and feel good associations for the candidate.  In other words, the candidate who can steer donations to a charity by sending out personal "behests' [sic], is treated as the charity's favorite son or daughter, though the charity never implicitly tells its stakeholders to "vote for so and so because he supports us."  A 2017 article graphically illustrated the potential in this graphic regarding behested payments solicited by Mayor Eric Garcetti:

 

 

Mayor Garcetti has raised a boat load of money mostly for the Mayor's Fund of Los Angeles, a 501(c)(3) he set up himself and which generally does its good works in partnership with L.A. city government, especially the incumbent Mayor.  One commentator describes Garcetti's success with behested payments thusly:

Garcetti has raised more than twice as much in behested payments as California Gov. Jerry Brown and more than 40 times the amount of Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom over the same time period, according to a KPCC analysis of reports filed by the politicians.  Most of the donations Garcetti raised went to a charity he helped create after his election, the Mayor's Fund for Los Angeles, according to reports he filed with the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission.  Other contributions given at his request benefited other efforts, including two that are dear to his heart: L.A.'s Olympic bid and The GRYD Foundation, which runs a summertime park program Garcetti has supported for years.  “It strikes me that he’s taking advantage of the law more than anybody else has ever done,” said Bob Stern, a former California Fair Political Practices Commission general counsel who helped write the state's 1974 Political Reform Act.

 

 

 

California has disclosure rules that require politicians to disclose "behested payments."  I suppose transparency in politics is a good thing so I don't have a philosophical bent against campaign disclosure laws.  But what exactly is the public to conclude from, for example, the disclosure that a political incumbent has generated -- "behested" -- millions of dollars for a charity whose glow benefits everybody with whom the charity associates, including its political incumbent rainmaker?  The answer to that question begs the question what exactly is the politician purchasing from the charity who benefits from behested payments and what implication does that expectation have for charitable organizations prohibited from campaign intervention.  I will talk about that in my next post.

 

Darryll K. Jones