Colorado imposes no limits on the amount of money an individual or organization can give to local school board candidates, even though state law limits donations to virtually every other politician.
That loophole was on stark display in the most recent election of board members at Denver Public Schools. Thomas Gamel and his associates poured more than $200,000 into the coffers of three “reform” candidates, and it has raised questions about whether limits ought to be slapped on those races as well.
We say, not so fast.
We traditionally have supported campaign-finance limits over the years, but we’ve seen the rules subverted so many times we’ve grown to question their effectiveness.
Gamel’s donations, especially to at-large candidate Mary Seawell, dwarfed the donations of teachers unions, normally the 500-pound gorilla in school board elections.
Gamel and friends gave Seawell at least $130,350 and she won by a more than 2-to-1 ratio. And though Seawell concedes the bad publicity that’s risen over the donations could hurt her, she asserts that Gamel “was asking for nothing” in return.
Even Gamel advocates for limiting personal donations, telling The Post’s Jeremy P. Meyer, “I don’t think money should buy elections. I don’t think someone should be able to dominate an election.”
But as Gamel points out, money isn’t the only thing that wins elections; policies and candidates also play a significant role.
That point is more than made by the fact that of the three candidates Gamel’s largesse supported, only Seawell won. Basically, he couldn’t buy this particular election.
And had state law limited Gamel’s contributions, he could have simply set up a 501c(4) with a happy-sounding name like “Coloradans for Smart Kids,” poured unlimited amounts of money into it, and promoted his slate of candidates.
No one would have known who he was or what his intentions were.
Under existing transparency laws, voters knew about Gamel’s donations before they voted. (Of course, more financial reporting will be due in coming months, meaning we don’t always know where candidates get their cash before Election Day.)
Because of most do-gooder campaign finance laws in the past, money in politics is often driven underground through 501c(4)s or 527s. And those mostly anonymous groups are to blame for some of the ugliest attack ads.
Donating money to political candidates and causes is part of our freedom-of-speech rights.
Should we limit an individual’s right to contribute if unions and other small donor groups can still spend unlimited amounts of money?
Perhaps it’s best to know where the money is coming from so voters are better informed, rather than approve more laws that lead to behind-the-scenes giving that too often leaves voters in the dark.
