Campaign finance change would bar corporations from donating to Wichita city candidates

Candidates for public office in Wichita would no longer be able to accept donations from corporations and limited liability companies if the Wichita City Council moves forward Tuesday with a proposed ban.

Proposed amendments to the city’s campaign finance rules would prohibit municipal candidates and their political committees from accepting money from in-state and out-of-state corporations and LLCs and instead allow donations only from individuals, political action committees and other entities.

Under Kansas law, a person, business, organization or other entity can contribute up to $500 to a candidate in each election cycle.

The rules don’t bar those behind LLCs and corporations from donating as individuals and again in their companies’ names, feeding what can amount to thousands of dollars into a candidate’s campaign and giving them what some see as an unfair advantage.

Wichita Mayor Brandon Whipple has asked the City Council to declare a public emergency so the ordinance can be adopted when it’s introduced Tuesday “to insure that candidates in upcoming elections have the necessary guidance to establish appropriate financing for City of Wichita election campaigns,” according to the request for declaration of emergency.

Tuesday’s meeting is Whipple’s last as mayor after he lost his seat to former television reporter Lily Wu in November’s general election. Wu — who raised a record $440,000 in contributions during her mayoral campaign, including about $115,000 from businesses — will be sworn in on Jan. 8, according to the city’s website.

Businesses contributed $5,200 to Whipple’s campaign, according to an Eagle analysis of campaign finance reports.

The new rules, if passed, would apply to mayor and city council campaigns in Wichita.

Asked to comment on the proposal Friday, Wu sent an emailed statement.

“Individuals and businesses are both vital to our community and should be able to participate in campaigns. The state already mandates a $500 contribution limit per individual or entity, and attempting to manipulate this could have other consequences,” she wrote.

She noted her record number of contributions “from a diverse population of Wichitans” and added: “At the end of the day, it’s not dollars that win elections but voters who make the effort to vote for the candidate.”

Prohibitions on the types of entities that can donate to Wichita municipal elections aren’t new. The city used to bar political committees, corporations, partnerships, trusts, labor unions, business groups and other organizations from contributing to candidates.

But the council changed the ordinance in December 2015 to make it more consistent with state law and help avoid First Amendment challenges in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision, which prohibits the government from restricting independent spending for political campaigns by corporations and other groups.

During a public meeting Friday where council members reviewed Tuesday’s agenda, outgoing council member Bryan Frye questioned whether a public emergency really exists and why the council waited until now to try to make changes.

“There’s a lot of social media chatter that ... because this would affect the next council that they should be allowed to weigh in on it. By rushing it forward, they don’t have that opportunity,” Frye said.

“When I hear public emergency, I think of public health, public safety. This in my mind doesn’t fit that definition.”

Councilman Mike Hoheisel told Frye taking up the ordinance instead of waiting “had more to do with finishing up council business now as opposed to letting the next council follow through with it.”

Whipple told Frye an emergency exists because some people have already announced their campaigns for the next election cycle. Waiting to take action would give those candidates a chance to “bundle checks into their account” and put others in the race who might not understand the complexities of campaign finance law at a disadvantage, he said.

“Every year there is a new financial timing, which means that every year it all resets,” Whipple said.

Frye argued that rushing to pass the ordinance and pushing it through without a public workshop or engagement from the city’s district advisory boards “reeks of no transparency.” He pointed out that the council had “multiple public engagement opportunities” before approving the most-recent police contract and sought input from district advisory boards on a proposed retaliatory eviction ordinance that’s also under consideration Tuesday.

“I’m not defending the action of bundling checks. I’m asking why is there such a rush when there should be more public discussion,” Frye said.

Whipple said that sort of input wasn’t needed because the campaign finance ordinance applies only to candidates. Public discussions should be for people participating in public programs and events, he said.

“You have landlords on your DABs (district advisory boards). You don’t have candidates on your DABs who are running for office,” Whipple said. “It makes sense if you want to actually make sure the next (election) cycle is fair, and that’s what we’re going to do.”

Frye also brought up that prohibiting LLCs and corporations from donating could have legal ramifications, including freedom of speech issues in light of the Citizens United ruling.

Hoheisel said the city’s legal department has reviewed multiple drafts of the ordinance, which is part of the reason it wasn’t introduced to the council sooner.

Although check bundling can also happen with PAC contributions, those wouldn’t be banned under the proposed ordinance because of legal concerns, Hoheisel said.

“This was the one that we thought we could get passed by the end of the year, and it’s written so that way if there are challenges and part of it is struck down, those parts that are struck down will be removed,” Hoheisel said.