Apparently it is the season

For political candidates to distance themselves from developers

With the municipal election just over 2 months away, I have started seeing statements from political candidates announcing that they will not accept any campaign donations from developers*. That had me wondering how most people felt about developer donations. So, last week, I ran a Twitter poll about political candidates accepting donations from developers. 

I asked: How important is it to you that a candidate does NOT accept campaign donations from 'developers'? ‘Extremely important’ took a whopping 70% of the vote. Just under 17% of respondents said it was not important. A follow-up poll question from me asked how people find out this information. This poll had far fewer responses, but most responded that they look at candidate information online. I found these responses fascinating and have decided to dedicate this week’s post to sharing some of my thoughts on this issue.

As I reflected on the question myself, I concluded that I am generally okay with political candidates at the municipal level accepting donations from developers. Judging by my poll, I am in the clear minority, but here are a few things I have been reflecting on regarding this issue.

First off, I think I struggle with declarations against developer donations because these blanket statements lack context and nuance. For example, should we consider one or two $100 donations from developers as equal to 4 or 5 $1000 donations from them? Or does the percentage of donations matter? For example, might we be okay with developer donations that total less than 10% of all donations to a particular candidate, but perhaps have concerns if donations from developers make up 60 or 70% of total donations? I’m not sure I have the answers to that today, but I do know all of that context is lost through such declarations.

I also believe that these types of general statements paint all developers with one brush. Do we really think all developers are equal? I know I have a list of developers who I think are doing really great work locally, and others, not so much. I’m also curious about who qualifies as a developer and who doesn’t. Are non-profit builders equal to for-profit developers? Or small-scale local builders the same as large, multi-national builders? What about landlords?

I think statements denying donations from developers also play into a popular, but unhelpful narrative about ‘evil developers’. While I have many concerns about our capitalist system and am happy to engage in that conversation anytime, I still recognize that developers are one, of many, important stakeholders in city-building. Why do we assume that any campaign donation from a developer comes with strings attached, but don’t make the same assumption about other groups? For example, there is a lot of evidence** that homeowners are over-represented in council delegations about proposed housing - should we ask political candidates to not accept donations from homeowners because of this? Obviously that approach seems rather paternalistic and unrealistic, when applied to homeowners. I think the same could be said when applied to developers. 

It seems that there is a certain level of privilege in statements about not accepting campaign donations. I have had the opportunity to speak with a number of people who have considered running locally and at least two have chosen not to, given the financial costs associated with running a campaign. Some people don’t have to worry much about covering the expenses of running a campaign if they have their own funds, but others do. If we are demanding that all candidates do not accept donations from one segment of potential donors, that can have a real cost to who can run or not.

I’m also curious why it is specifically developers that we seem concerned about in regards to campaign donations. I already mentioned the over-representation of homeowners in council delegations, but what about other groups? For example, one of the Region’s largest expense lines is the police budget. It seems to me that if there’s anyone we might want candidates to not accept donations from, at least Regional candidates, it might be the police, but I have not seen any such declarations.

Lastly, I am curious about how such declarations are ‘enforced’. Campaign donations must come from individuals as opposed to corporations. So, we don’t have Developer A (as a corporation) making campaign donations, but rather individual A who might own or work at Developer A. So, how does a candidate track whether any donations are tied to ‘developers’? And, I believe, campaign donations, as part of each candidate’s financial filings, aren’t submitted until after election day. So, how do we even know if a candidate is following through on such declarations until after they have been elected?

I understand people’s concerns about some developers controlling councillors, and there are reasons to be concerned. ACORN has done some work on this recently. However, I’m not sure that these statements about not accepting developer donations are the solution. But, I am curious what you think. Clearly, my Twitter poll suggests I am in the minority. What else should I be considering in my reflection on this topic? Feel free to comment!

---

*Note 1 - Corporations are not eligible campaign donors, only individuals are. Therefore ‘developer’ donations must come from individuals.

**Note 2 - There are a lot of interesting studies about who participates in council meetings and I hope to write more on this soon, but here are a few sources I am reading right now:

• The experience of homeownership leads property owners to become much more active in local politics.

• Homeowners are disproportionately represented among the "public" that shows up to public meetings.

• We find that individuals who are older, male, longtime residents, voters in local elections, and homeowners are significantly more likely to participate in these meetings.