Another Midwestern boat company has come into the news lately, although this time it might hurt a politician rather than a football team.
Last week, Gov. Jim Doyle returned $10,000 donated to him by the Burger Boat Company, a firm that recently won a state Harbor Assistance Program grant. The state accepted Burger Boat Co.'s proposal only two days after the contributions were made to Mr. Doyle's campaign fund, which immediately aroused suspicions when details of the contribution were made public.
As this incident comes amid an on-going scandal involving high-profile lobbyist Jack Abramoff, it is important that attention be paid to the source and integrity of campaign finance funds. Like Mr. Doyle, many of the Republican recipients of Mr. Abramoff's money have subsequently returned the funds after his conviction and downplayed previous statements expressing support and friendship towards him.
Yet the mere return of these funds does not remove the implications of their receipt, nor does it erase the implied suggestions of impropriety. While Mr. Doyle has returned the Burger Boat Co. donations, many have criticized him for still retaining funds received from the Adelman Travel Group, another company that received a state contract around the time of campaign donations.
The reasoning behind the return of one set of donations and not the other is that by returning too many donations, Mr. Doyle gives the impression that the personal contributions he receives can buy undue influence in the legislative process. By refusing to return the Adelman funds, the governor is attempting to eliminate the impressions that their contributions are somehow tied to the contract they received. Yet this tactic does not seem to convince many. Common Cause in Wisconsin Executive Director Jay Heck told The Badger Herald that "I am not really sure [returning the Burger Boat money] will put people's minds at ease about the Adelman money, and it's certainly not going to close the book on the Adelman Travel episode."
The action of returning tainted funds is more of a publicity move designed to separate the politicians from the scrutinized source rather than a rejection of the source itself or the system that allows for lobbyists and special interest group to have such intimate contact with national and state leaders. Lobbying is an unavoidable component of the modern political process, yet these situations highlight the need for increased insulation between those holding political power and those doing the lobbying.
By regulating the contact between lobbyists and politicians, the system could prevent itself from the eventual conflict of interest speculations. For politicians who truly wish to avoid the negative press involved with returning funds from shamed contributors, it is necessary to evaluate to a greater degree the intentions and credibility of institutional contributors or those who have increased access to political actors. While doing this would surely be a burden on those running campaigns, the cost of evaluating contributors should be measured against the negative impact on political capital if a situation occurred where funds would have to be returned due to a scandal or a hint of conflict of interest violation.
This task could be accomplished as well — and at a lesser cost to the politician — if there were more independent regulators of campaign contributions. While such entities exist, their purpose is more reactionary than advisory, typically pointing out signs of malfeasance rather than attempting to prevent them. Involving more insight of this type into campaign finance workings would be a boon for all politicians, especially Mr. Doyle. By doing so, he could both verify the integrity of past contributions and prevent himself from rocking the Burger Boat once more.
Mike Skelly ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in finance and political science.
