Chamber of Commerce found in violation of City campaign laws; City cancels contract with the Boulder Economic Council

Show Menu

October 30, 2006 -- The Boulder Chamber of Commerce and the Boulder Economic Council, a division of the Chamber, were found today by Boulder's City Clerk to have violated the City’s campaign laws by making contributions to the No on 2A campaign while being a city contractor. Apparently all funds have been returned by the No on 2A group, and no further penalties will be assessed. (You can also view the City's memo as a PDF)

The same memo also announced that Boulder's City Manager has cancelled the contract with the BEC, stating that he would not allow any appearance of improper political influence in City elections.

Spense Havlick, a former City Council member, was not pleased with the lack of penalties. He said, "When someone robs a bank, gets caught, and returns the stolen money, does the bank robber just walk away, or get his hand spanked? NO. Justice should be brought to bear and a conviction should be forthcoming no matter how much or how little illegally transferred money is returned. I expect justice to prevail and that the City and Chamber begin to behave in an ethical manner....after the penalties are imposed."

The memo is unclear and potentially dangerous "regarding possible changes in the ordinance". The City Council should make it clear to the City Manager and the City Attorney that the Council will not tolerate weakening the City's campaign ordinances so that city contractors can contribute to local political campaigns in the future. This could lead to a number of troubling outcomes, including tax dollars funding partisan activities, and contractors being pressured to contribute to politicians' campaign funds. The notion of segregated funds doesn't work either, since money is fungible.

A question that still remains is why the Chamber took weeks to ask for their donation back, when the BEC, which is part of the Chamber, asked for their contribution back after a few days.

One would presume that the Chamber officers and directors would have immediately recognized that they had violated the law, as they were the contractor to the City through one of their divisions. They should have ensured that ALL contributions from the Chamber, whether from the Chamber as a whole or from the BEC "division", were returned. But it appears that the Chamber was trying to not get caught, and when they were, they took the low road of attacking those who raised the issue in the first place rather than owning up to their own responsibility in the matter.

The City has apparently not explored issues related to pass-through donations, also a violation of the City’s campaign laws. The BEC members donated to the No on 2A group via their membership dues, rather than making their own donations, and apparently not all members voted on this. But it is unclear what the dues are for, aside from using the BEC web site to promote their own interests.

Also, it is unclear why the BEC asserts that 2A is "antithetical to economic vitality", other than to the economic vitality of the developers, bankers, real estate brokers and others who make up the BEC. The City staff says that the City's realistic build-out, without any annexations, would allow another 60,000+ jobs, and in any case 2A doesn't prevent annexations, it merely requires citizen ratification of a Council decision to annex a large parcel.

Last Modified 10/31/06 12:21 PM