Republican Tim Didier last week emerged as the key vote to determine whether the City Council adopts an ordinance regulating campaign financing for city offices. Now that the attorney general’s office has said such an ordinance would not stand because it illegally overrides state law, Didier will likely vote “no.”
The measure appeared to have four solid supporters and four solid opponents. Democrat John Shoaff joined Republicans Liz Brown, Mitch Harper and Tom Smith in supporting an effort to limit how much money city contractors could donate to candidates for mayor, council and city clerk. Republican Marty Bender joined Democrats Tim Pape, Karen Goldner and Glynn Hines in opposition.
Didier last week led the move to table the ordinance to wait for the attorney general’s opinion. That opinion came Friday, saying there is “no statutory authority for a local unit of government to regulate conduct related to campaign financing, including contributions.” Not surprisingly, the opinion reinforced a 1983 attorney general’s opinion as well as a recent opinion from both the Republican and Democratic lawyers for the Indiana Election Commission.
The opinions gave no credence to Brown and Harper’s argument that the proposal governs city contracts, not campaign contributions. Obviously, it covers both.
Brown suggested last week that any opinion of the attorney general would be moot because the proposed ordinance has changed and could change again. But Pape, Goldner, Didier and others appeared to understand before it was issued that the attorney general’s opinion would apply to any effort to regulate campaign contributions.
For his part, Shoaff, the only council Democrat to support the proposal, seemed to suggest the council should pass the ordinance anyway to show its opposition to the state regulating local campaigns. Such a move would be a pure – and expensive – folly, leading to a court case the city would be sure to lose. The AG’s opinion reinforces the simple fact that Indiana’s cities, towns and counties are all creations of the state government and can do no more or no less than state law allows.
What’s next
The council voted 5-4 last week to table the ordinance, with Didier joining the opponents to delay the measure. Now, it appears the council likely will lack the majority to move the measure off the table back to the council’s agenda.
But Harper has written a new proposal and could well seek to start the process anew, again arguing that the proposal governing campaign contributions isn’t really a campaign contribution ordinance.
Proponents of the ordinance should understand it has no chance of becoming law – but it can still be a tool Brown and Harper can use to try to hurt Mayor Tom Henry in this fall’s election.
At best, they pass an ordinance 5-4, then criticize Henry for vetoing it. At worst, they utter the words “mayor” with the phrase “pay to play” as often as possible.
