Photo by Chris Rief aka Spodie Odie

On a day when a D.C. Council committee heard testimony on a trio of bills that would tighten up the city’s campaign finance laws, D.C. Attorney General Irv Nathan rolled out Mayor Vince Gray’s long-awaited comprehensive reform of D.C.’s campaign finance rules.

Among the changes proposed, contractors looking to bid on substantial city contracts would be barred from making campaign contributions to elected officials that would vote on that contract, ending what is known as “pay to play.” Candidates would be forced to file contribution and expenditure reports electronically, money order contributions would be limited to $25 per person, more money would be directed to the D.C. Office and Campaign Finance and candidates would be held more accountable for the actions of their campaign committees.

More significantly, disclosure requirements would be strengthened, forcing corporate contributors to identify all subsidiaries, affiliates, and controlling shareholders, which would make it more difficult for corporations to use networks of LLCs to exceed legal contribution limits. According to Nathan’s testimony, “[D]isclosure requirements, rather than strict limitations or outright bans, are the best way to deal with independent expenditures.”

That proposal seemed aimed squarely at a citizen-led initiative that would ban corporate contributions to local campaigns. Criticizing Initiative 70—which has over 21,000 of the 23,000 signatures needed to get on the November ballot—as a “meat ax” approach to campaign finance reform, Nathan worried that an outright ban could be overturned by the courts. (The ACLU spoke out against the initiative for that very reason, arguing that corporations was too broad a term.)

But for Bryan Weaver, one of the initiative’s proponents, a meat ax is exactly what’s needed to clean up D.C. politics. “Until we pushed this with our ‘meat ax’ agenda, this hasn’t been a priority for the council or the mayor’s office,” he said. “Until we really started doing this initiative process, until we put this on the front-burner…it was never really talked about.”

For Nathan and Gray, the goal seems to be to pass a single piece of comprehensive legislation that will draw upon what other cities and states have done and avoid court scrutiny. (Gray originally promised the legislation would be offered in mid-May, but today was the first hint of what would be in it.) Nathan also warned against passing individual pieces of legislation, three of which were being discussed today.

“Our proposed reforms are drawn from the best practices of other jurisdictions, and from a careful assessment of the vulnerabilities in the District’s current campaign-finance law. Because we are preparing comprehensive legislation, we urge the Council to await our proposal, rather than enacting piecemeal measures. Our electoral process will benefit significantly from campaign-finance reform, but that reform should be comprehensive, fully vetted, and well considered,” he said.

Both Weaver and Councilmember Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) seemed skeptical at Nathan’s approach, saying that they doubted it could make it through the council unscathed. “I would be stunned if the city council passed what you proposed,” said Wells. “It would be gutted first.”

Nathan said he would formally introduce the legislation to the council in mid-July, with the hope that it be debated and voted on in September.

Testimony of Irvin B. Nathan 6-25-12 Re Campaign Finance Reform