Volcanic Ash
Keep quiet on the Harris case
By David Shapiro
The Campaign Spending Commission's investigation into the political finances of Mayor Jeremy Harris has potential for explosive impact in next year's governor's election.
That's exactly why Robert Watada, executive director of the commission, needs to be more circumspect in his public speculation about the investigation.
If Watada doesn't adopt a more fair-minded demeanor and stop spinning his case in the press, he runs a risk that anything he comes up with in this or other investigations will be written off as politics.
The commission has fined several Harris donors for making contributions in excess of legal limits. Watada says the board is looking at suspicious donations from more than 60 other companies and suggests the investigation could lead to criminal penalties against the Harris campaign if donors were pressured to contribute to protect their city contracts.
Harris, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for governor, denies any such link and has filed an ethics complaint accusing Watada of a "political vendetta" aimed at derailing his campaign.
Watada is an honest and vigilant watchdog who has done much to clean up abuses in political campaign financing since he took his job in 1995. There is no credible evidence that he has a personal grudge against Harris.
But the mayor has a fair point, if somewhat overstated. Premature public speculation is unfair to Harris and other candidates who come under the commission's scrutiny. It plants a suspicion of guilt with the voting public when there may turn out to be none.
Watada should save his talk until he has evidence to bring actual charges against the Harris campaign.
Harris has every reason to worry about the investigation. Many elected officials who have run afoul of campaign finance laws in recent years have ended up in serious political trouble — or even in prison.
So far, the commission has proved only that several businesses have given more to the Harris campaign than the law allows. By law, these infractions are the responsibility of the donors — not the campaign.
But Harris and his campaign could be in serious trouble if people in the campaign or administration are found to have actively solicited illegal donations from businesses that rely on city contracts.
Watada said several company executives have told him they felt "extorted" by the Harris campaign —that they feared being frozen out of city work if they didn't contribute.
Alarming, indeed, but if Watada can prove it, he should be presenting his case to prosecutors — not to TV cameras. Harris insists that "Campaign contributions and the awarding of city contracts by the departments in my administration are totally unrelated."
Watada defends his public statements, saying, "The taxpayers want to know what I'm doing, and they pay my salary so I have to keep them informed."
That simply doesn't fly for an enforcement officer involved in a sensitive investigation with such high stakes. A professional regulator gathers his facts and lets them speak for themselves. He doesn't air preliminary suspicions or spar in the press with targets of his investigations.
When Watada accuses Harris of desperate complaints intended to harass and intimidate him, they sound like the words of a political player — not an impartial investigator.
Watada has unsuccessfully lobbied the Legislature to sharply restrict political donations by businesses that do business with government. He's absolutely right about the potential for corruption and, perhaps, some day lawmakers will find the integrity and courage to heed his advice.
But until then, he can only enforce the laws we have — not the laws he wishes we had.
David Shapiro can be reached by e-mail at dave@volcanicash.net
