Critics are rightly questioning the $2 million-plus in public funds that the Indiana secretary of state has spent on TV and radio advertising. Also deserving scrutiny is the correlation between Todd Rokita’s campaign contributors and contract awards from his office.
Consider Haverstick Consulting, recipient of a $264,000 contract from the secretary of state’s office in November 2008. Since 2007, the Indianapolis company has given $7,700 in campaign contributions to Rokita.
Crichlow Products of Indianapolis has contributed more than $2,000 to Rokita’s campaign in regular installments since 2003. It was awarded a $24,680 contract from his office in November 2006.
Then there’s Russell Martin & Associates, which won a $13,175 contract in January 2006. The company contributed $400 to the secretary of state’s campaign coffers in September 2005; another $500 in August 2008.
Hirons & Co. of Bloomington and Fort Wayne’s Asher Agency also are contractors who have contributed to the Republican officeholder’s campaign chest. Hirons has won two lucrative jobs promoting the secretary of state’s investor education program, while Asher won a $550,000 contract for a statewide media campaign in 2008, following $1,250 in contributions from Tim Borne, a company principal.
As the Indiana General Assembly prepares to consider tightening ethics rules for its own members and the executive branch, it shouldn’t overlook the candidate-contractor connection. Other states have “pay to play” restrictions on campaign contributions from government contractors. Ohio, for example, prohibits state and local officials from awarding any contract worth more than $10,000 to a contractor who has contributed more than $1,000 within two years of the contract award.
House Speaker Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, includes a restriction on state contracting and contributions in the package of ethics reforms he has proposed – belatedly – for the upcoming session. The bill he’s supporting would prohibit state government contractors or potential bidders from making political contributions to state candidates, with violations subject to civil and criminal penalties.
“By enacting these guidelines, we will make sure that any expenditure of state funds are based upon the quality of a contractor’s work product, rather than the size of their political contributions,” Bauer said in a news release.
House Minority Leader Brian Bosma rightly notes that the restrictions should extend to political action committees, noting that the Indiana State Teachers Association PAC gave more than $1 million to House Democratic candidates in the last election cycle.
Julia Vaughn of Common Cause Indiana said the state’s lax election finance laws leave every public official vulnerable to questions.
“The universe of people who invest in political campaigns is very small,” she said. “It’s always those with a strong self-interest in the process. No matter how good your motives are, you are going to be subject to questions. If we had a system of public financing for campaigns, there would be a way for elected officials to be free of this taint.”
No one has questioned the quality of the work done on behalf of the secretary of state’s office, but the intersection of Rokita’s initiatives and the amount of money spent on TV and radio ads is notable. Most observers believe the secretary of state, whose second term ends in 2010, will seek the GOP nod for governor in 2012, so the name recognition he wins in public-awareness campaigns is invaluable. In TV spots now airing, Rokita appears in front of a flag-draped backdrop.
The money for his investment watch campaign comes from fines paid as settlements in securities fraud cases, not tax dollars. But it’s money that could be spent assisting Hoosiers who have fallen victim to foreclosure, for example.
Lawmakers should approve a comprehensive set of ethics reforms when they convene in January, and a bill that severs the possibility for ties between contributions and contracts should be a part of the package.
