Council committee considers limiting campaign contributions 

A rally before yesterday’s Plans & Policies Committee meeting of Springfield City Council was followed by an audience of a couple dozen residents during committee deliberations, but campaign finance reform – the issue at the heart of the fuss – received general support from members. 

Councilmember Craig Hosmer referred the proposal to the committee. It calls for caps on contribution limits to mayor and council candidates in the city of Springfield. The amount suggested is $2,600, an amount that is in line with limits on contributions for state officeholders and judges in Missouri. In 2016, voters in the state passed Amendment 2 to establish contribution limits for state offices with a 70% majority. 

But Springfield, like all but two Missouri cities, is the wild west for campaign spending, with no limits at all on campaign contributions for city offices. Only St. Louis and Kansas City have caps on contributions for municipal offices, according to a report by City Attorney Jordan Paul. 

Paul offered an overview of the issue, noting Springfield had local campaign finance rules from 1996 to 2020 before a council ordinance repealed them. 

Paul said the general trend with court decisions is against limits. Base limits, which apply to one person giving a contribution to one candidate, are generally ruled constitutional, while aggregate limits of one person giving to multiple recipients are generally unconstitutional. Limits of contributions from expenditure-only political action committees are generally unconstitutional. 

In summary, he said contributions, specifically base limits, may be constitutional if enacted for the purpose of avoiding quid pro quo candidate corruption, or its appearance. 

Contribution limits for elected officials in St. Louis are a base limit of $2,600.  

Kansas City has base contribution limits of $3,325 for the mayor, $2,775 for council members at large and $1,675 for district council members.  

In both cases, enforcement is through the local Missouri Ethics Commission equivalent using city attorney prosecution in municipal court, and penalties are fines or jail, Paul said. 

Paul said the investigation piece is problematic if the city clerk is charged with that responsibility. 

Councilmember Callie Carroll said, “One of my favorite things about Springfield is that you can be a young professional and serve on City Council or other office if you put in the work, raise the money, do the things – and the reason people raise the money is for name recognition.”  

She said if council wants to level the playing field, it is important to establish term limits as well, particularly since council members are frequently in the news. 

“If we don’t have term limits it will be harder for someone who’s younger and not in the political world to be able to run and get their name out there,” she said. 

Councilmember Heather Hardinger said elections and campaigns are expensive to run, and contribution limits would level the playing field to a degree. She, too, said term limits would be helpful. 

“I think that also allows more diversity of folks from the community who are interested in serving in this capacity,” she said. 

Councilmember Abe McGull, who chairs the committee, agreed that limits on both contributions and terms are necessary. 

“I think the whole purpose behind this … is to build legitimacy and transparency and accountability into the political process, and we do accomplish some of that with this proposed ordinance,” he said. 

But he added there is another side to the coin that is easy to lose sight of. 

“It sounds good on paper, but it could have a very chilling effect on the average Jane Doe or John Doe running for office,” he said. “The more complicated you make the process, the harder it is for the average citizen to actually jump into the fray and actually become part of the political change or process.” 

He said dealing with the MEC requirements can be difficult. 

McGull said he took issue with a section of the ordinance requiring a local commission to monitor the requirement, since the MEC is already in place. A local commission as suggested adds another layer of bureaucracy, he said. 

“We must not lose sight of the fact that Kansas City and St. Louis pay their elected officials. This is a voluntary role,” he said of Springfield’s leadership. 

Paul clarified that the MEC would not monitor local requirements. He suggested MEC forms could be used to serve a dual purpose for local enforcement. 

Hosmer said the discussion makes the issue sound more difficult than it needs to be, and most people follow the law. 

“If someone is giving contributions of $10,000, $100,000, the appearance of impropriety … if you’re getting the bulk of your campaign contributions from one person, that doesn’t look good as a city,” he said. “If someone gives $200,000 to a candidate for mayor, you can buy an election in the city of Springfield. That’s not what any of us want; that’s not good for the city.” 

He said he wants to make sure something is on the books, like benchmark cities such as Bentonville and Fayetteville, Arkansas. 

Hardinger said if council is going to have additional limits, members should be paid. 

“That’s a different conversation,” she said. 

She added that sometimes it is the perception that certain candidates have more access to people with more capital to support them, and everyday people have fewer opportunities to serve. 

Hosmer said would-be officeholders will also have to show that they are being responsible as candidates. 

“The gravity of the decisions are the same, whether you’re paid or not paid. The impact of your decisions are the same, whether you’re paid or not paid,” he said. 

He suggested a focus on the proposal. 

“What we do sometimes is we bring in all these other things – yeah, I agree, but,” he said, “and we don’t ever get to the point of actually passing.” 

The other three members, Carroll, Hardinger and McGull, said they agree with the legislation. 

“I hear that we are all in favor of the campaign limits amount,” McGull said.  

For next steps, the committee will continue working on the bill, particularly in the area of reporting and enforcement. If members agree, they will pass it along to council for a vote on whether to enact it.