[ad_1]
MINOT, N.D. — Is anyone bothering to enforce North Dakota’s ban on corporate political contributions?
I ask, because the politicians are getting pretty brazen in their disregard for the law.
Section
of the North Dakota Century Code states: “A corporation, cooperative corporation, limited liability company, affiliate, subsidiary, or association may not make a contribution for a political purpose,” with “political purpose” defined as “any activity undertaken in support of or in opposition to the election or nomination of a candidate to public office … whether the activity is undertaken by a candidate, a political committee, a political party, or any person.”
Screenshot
Violation of this section of code is a class A misdemeanor.
Yet, despite this clear prohibition in the law, and its consequences, politicians are flouting it, and they’re not even really trying to hide it.
For instance, in District 8, a battleground in the North Dakota Republican Party’s heated primaries this cycle, an event supporting three legislative candidates
was advertised as having corporate sponsorship
.
Now we have another example in Minot’s mayoral elections. Incumbent Shaun Sipma made a pre-primary campaign finance disclosure to the city auditor with just one reported donation: $2,500 from Epic Companies.
This is notable not just because a political contribution coming from a corporation is prohibited by the law, but because Epic Companies currently has business before the city government. They just received approval for $2.25 million in tax increment financing from the city for the company’s efforts to renovate the “Big M” building in downtown Minot, turning it into condos and office space.
Sipma voted to
.
One of Sipma’s challengers, city councilman Tom Ross, also has contributions from businesses in his disclosure. He’s raised $5,460 including $660 in unitemized contributions under $200, and $2,500 in donations from a local bowling alley, a local gas and service station, a local bar, and a local restaurant.
I’m not aware of any businesses those companies have had before the city council recently, but the contributions are still prohibited by the law.
The third candidate for mayor, former councilwoman Miranda Schuler, reported only $325 in unitemized contributions under $200.
I asked Sipma if he was aware that corporate campaign contributions are prohibited by the law. “I have not read into that no,” he told me.
“It was unsolicited,” he added. “I didn’t put out a request for any donations whether it be private or any other entity. I don’t have any other campaign contributions or asks even out there.”
“I was not aware of that,” Ross told me when asked about the law prohibiting corporate giving. He said he considered these donations as coming from the individuals who own the businesses, but said he wasn’t sure if the funds came from corporate accounts or private funds.
But that’s sort of the problem, isn’t it? We have people running for office, at multiple levels of government, who are seeking the authority to make law and public policy, but who don’t seem to be aware of the laws governing their own campaigns.
Worse, nobody seems to be reviewing these campaign disclosures to ensure the law is being followed.
Local elections are particularly difficult to track in this manner. While legislative and statewide candidates and ballot measure campaigns have to make filings with the secretary of state’s office, which are then entered into a searchable database available online, local candidates file their reports with local officials.
They’re not typically available online. I had to request these reports from the city government in order to receive them.
There is no reason why those reports shouldn’t be available online for the public to scrutinize that their leisure.
But even if we made that change, what good are campaign finance laws if they aren’t being enforced?
There are hundreds of local elections happening all over the state. It might behoove you, citizen, to make some requests for the financial disclosures of your local candidates to ensure they’re following the law.
[ad_2]
Source link
