October 08, 2001

Keith Thomas

    Detroit's mayoral race this year was supposed to set campaign spending records. Back when Denis Archer was still supposed to be a candidate figures as high as 3 million dollars were tossed around as the amount a challenger would have to raise just to match him through the primary. Even after he bowed out or chose not to run for re-election the same figure was used as the amount for the next mayor needed to raise if they would be successful in winning on November sixth. But as the theme of campaign finance reform was a major issue in the 2000 presidential race it has yet to be mentioned in this years Detroit mayoral or any local political race.

    Campaign finance laws are supposed to help ensure the integrity of an election and our political process. A government by the people and for the people must include the possibility of a government administration run by any qualified individual. Where the qualifications are set to be age, residency, of course citizenship, criminal convictions, and in the rare instance for a few offices such as judgeships, scholarly achievement or similar credentials. Campaign finance laws were slowly introduced to try and prevent a few wealthy individuals from financing candidates and thus leaving the rest of the people out of the political process. It is supposed to track where a candidate gets donations and where they spend their money. Of course there are loopholes. One large loophole is the ability for groups to give more money than the individual limit to a political candidate. This and other perceived problems from proponents of campaign finance reform are used to pursue more aggressive campaign financing rules and regulations. So people who adamantly back reform say that our democracy is for sale when campaign financing is controlled by wealthy.

    The Black community has historically not been the primary financial backers of their elected political representatives. In the past when districts contained fewer people and neighborhoods resembled more of a community, many Black politicians could literally take to the streets and interact with the people to solicit votes. Churches, school related organizations, or block clubs were some of the many avenues where political candidates for office met with the citizens to ask for votes. Money was not a major factor as many did not own TV's and until the recent 25 years, TV was not as important in a political campaign. The print media was more efficiently used and in fact the news media covered political races more in depth and with arguably less bias than today's version of political campaigns. Also now News media companies are seen as money making businesses that compete with other forms of business in a community for attention and the same dollars. So there is a more inherent interest in some circles for a news organization to help 'elect' the candidate of their choice. But this still does not negate the black community.

    In Detroit one of the ten largest cities in the US, money is now a necessary factor in any citywide campaign. In a city that some say still has a million residents it is impossible for a candidate to meet or greet all the people in person. Even when the candidate needs only 150,00 votes to become the next mayor it is a difficult task to meet each and every one of those voters. So television is a necessity to reach part of the potential voting block. In Detroit it has long been reported even in the days of Coleman Young the cities first Black mayor that the primary sources of campaign donations have come from outside the city of Detroit. This includes the powerful democrats who now run Wayne County and Oakland County, a historically strong Republican enclave. This occurs as many politicians still claim that Oakland County is at odds with Detroit and works against the cities best interests. This racially charged region has sometimes appeared as an Oakland County vs. Detroit, white vs. black, struggle for political dominance.

    Detroit has recently endured school reform, which was supposed to bring about positive change to the ways the Detroit Public school system was educating its students. The state legislator overturned the elected school board and an appointed board was installed in its place. This board then chose a CEO who has all the powers of the old elected board combined with the powers of the former position of School Superintendent. This person was supposed to be able to push through change that would improve the school system. To date this reform has taken the district from a budget surplus when the elected board was in place to a budget deficit. It has built an elementary school on contaminated ground. Pepper sprayed and forcibly removed parents from school board meetings. Made highly questionable financial deals with people who have connections with underworld crime figures. And has spent or made plans to spend 1.5 billion dollars in bond money with no plans or studies to determine the best way to utilize the money and have it benefit the majority of the districts students. Many who once called for this reform are now its chief critics. And some who once imposed it are now enjoying employment under this new system. This is a sample of reform Detroit style. And education undergoing reform that some say it did not need.

    Now Detroit seems to be going through political reform. But unfortunately it is not in the positive direction. Instead of reforming campaign finance or other factors of politics it is simply changing the way the people choose to elect their representatives. Or perhaps more accurately changing the issues that have been historically important to voters and replacing them with what many are calling beauty contests or popularity contests. Voters also are no longer voting. Recently they averaged less than a 30% turnout for any elections since the early 1990's. Get out the vote and voter reform programs are non-existent. It has been said by more than one person in the public eye that Detroit voters are unsophisticated voters. Not comprehending the backgrounds of the candidates and how it might relate to their on job performance or ideologies. Or by ignoring issues that seem to be important election topics and dismissing them as easily as you ignore the ice cream truck on a cool autumn afternoon. Are the voters less interested, les educated or are there other factors at work?

    In recent campaigns it seems that adults who run these campaigns or support the candidates are reducing themselves to childish antics and tactics against their opponents. Supposedly the race for mayor between Kwame Kilpatrick, a current state representative, and Gil Hill, the current president of the city council, is full of accusations and mud slinging. This is despite the reported promise that they would refrain from this type of activity. And instead of the candidate hurling accusations themselves, their supporters, some of who are paid, are doing this and far more in obvious hopes of hurting the opponent. The traditional strategies of TV, Radio and other forms of advertising are being pushed over, but not replaced, in favor of future contract promises, payoffs and other forms of enlisting support. This has always occurred in campaigns but never as the primary factor in an election. But it should be said that promising a contract is legal if it is part of the authority of that office and whatever rules that need to be followed are not violated. Paying individuals to work in a campaign is also legal. It is legal to pay some people to do nothing. Some may still call it bribery or influence peddling, but whether that is a true depiction or not is up to interpretation.

    Another long used tactic that is a result of attempts to control and reform campaign financing is the use of what is referred to as a slush fund. Loosely this is a pool of money, which is used to bypass laws or regulations and be able to have undocumented money for a political campaign. These funds take many forms and come in a variety of gimmicks. Some are even public but the true nature of their use is hidden from the public eye. People sometime think that these funds are dumped directly into the campaign treasury but that is usually not the case. Campaign reports that each candidate makes would reveal any money that did not meet the criteria for a donation and would have to be returned or could even land the candidate in trouble with the law. Also these funds are usually not used on direct campaign items because of the same reasons. A state investigator or probably more often the opponent will scrutinize the same report and compare the findings to what the candidate has done to gain support for office. If it could be shown that the candidate actually spent more money that what was reported on the finance report then that would lead to an investigation and possibly more trouble with the law.

    Slush funds are often used to pay people under the table or pay people who are needed in a political campaign but do not have to do any work directly related to the campaign. This work might take the form of a program aimed at getting new, or lazy, voters to the polls. What is never said is that these people would only try to encourage voters loyal to their candidate to vote or at the same time they are 'getting out the vote' they also sell the positive aspects of their candidate and remind people all of the negative aspects of their opponent, a personal conversation disguising an active campaign. The funds can also be used to pay volunteers, usually under the table, in cash. This way the volunteers get money but do not have to report it on their taxes and can help out the candidate of their choice. This can also be used to loan money to other organizations that also support the candidate whether or not they are allowed to do so by law. Non-Profit organizations are banned from supporting candidates. A loan from a fund setup aside from the campaign account can funnel money to the people of a non-profit organization to get their support or keep them from supporting the other candidate. Sometimes these funds can loan money to the candidate who can then place it into their campaign treasury. In Michigan a candidate can contribute as much as they want to their own campaign. It often does not matter or is infrequently checked where the money came from. If the candidate has a high paying job, or several sources of income, a high donation from the candidate to their own campaign is usually never questioned. It can be said that these funds provide for a political form of money laundering. It is unclear just how illegal this is compared to the actual crime of money laundering since the source of the income is usually not obtained illegally. These are loopholes in the laws and therefore escape the same level of scrutiny. Usually once discovered they are investigated much to the embarrassment of the candidate and usually result in a fine or other light forms of punishment. It seems the courts are kind in that few politicians ever loose their office or go to jail as a result of these funds.

    What will Detroit's return on its investment show in 2003, after the next mayor has been in office for one year? Voters need to try to use the candidates past to predict the future while also considering the forces that help to shape the political landscape in Detroit. No group or person can ever watch all of the politicians or groups all of the time but if more voters and voter advocacy groups did just that than perhaps this political reform, Detroit style, would not be detrimental the cities health and well being.