The Aurora City Council will be voting on a long-discussed campaign finance ethics reform package at its meeting on Tuesday, June 9, according to Mayor John Laesch.
The reform package was proposed by Laesch last October, and since then it has faced delay after delay. It has been debated at a number of different committee meetings, and when it went before City Council in March, was sent back to a committee for further review.
Under the proposed regulations, those who are doing business with the city or looking to would be prevented from donating more than $1,500 per year to city elected officials or those running for city office.
It would also expand economic interest disclosures required of candidates, elected officials and certain city employees.
Laesch has said that the proposed package was designed to increase transparency and “reduce the influence that outside money has on city contracts.”
Campaign ethics reform was a campaign promise for Laesch, who won the mayoral seat over incumbent Richard Irvin last year.
During the most recent campaign, and in a previous unsuccessful run for mayor, Laesch claimed Irvin prioritized government contracts or incentives to those who donated to his campaign — a claim which Irvin consistently denied.
Now, around eight months after Laesch formally proposed the ethics reform package, he said that City Council will be voting on it at the upcoming meeting on Tuesday “regardless” of what happens.
When asked how he expected the vote to go, he said: “We’ll see.”
The most recent action taken on the proposal was on May 19 by the Aurora City Council’s Rules, Administration and Procedure Committee, which voted 3-2 to recommend the proposal be approved.
In favor of the proposal were Alds. Javier Banuelos, 7th Ward; Edward Bugg, 9th Ward; and Will White, at-large. Alds. Daniel Barreiro, 1st Ward; and Shweta Baid, 10th Ward, voted against it.
It is now time to “let the public know who’s for it and who’s against it,” Laesch said. It has been worked on for months, he said, and he’s made compromises from his original vision of a full ban on campaign donations from those doing business with the city.
At past meetings, more than half of the 12 City Council members had raised at least some issue with the proposed ethics reform package. Some have argued that the rules could make it harder for new candidates to run for office, while others said it would allow the city to closely control local elections.
Despite reservations, some aldermen have argued that doesn’t mean they are against ethics reform in general — they are just against specific parts of the proposal.
Others have argued against the premise of the rules altogether, disputing the assertion that the City Council is being, or could be, corrupted by outside money.
Specifically, the ethics reform package would prevent anyone who has done business with the city in the last four years, or who is seeking to do business with the city, from making over $1,500 in donations during a single year to any candidate for city office or to a city elected official.
It would place the same restrictions on donations to any city official or employee who is is a candidate for another office.
Under the proposal, “doing business” with the city means any sales, purchases, leases or contracts that are collectively over $5,000 within 12 months.
“Seeking to do business” would mean any action within the last six months to seek a contract or other business with the city, or having specific types of economic matters before City Council in the last or the next six months.
Lobbyists would be fully prevented from making donations to city elected officials, and anonymous or pass-through donations would also be banned.
Those found to have donated more than the allowed amount would be barred from doing business with the city for four years.
Counting towards the cap would be donations made by the business itself as well as any made by parent companies or subsidiaries, and in some cases donations made by employees themselves.
The proposed ethics reform package would also require elected officials, candidates and certain city employees to publicly disclose a list of all real estate the person owns, what business entities located within Aurora they own, any city-funded or affiliated organizations they are involved with, and any gifts, loans or services they’ve received from those doing business with the city.
It would also expand existing economic interest disclosures, so that candidates and city officials would need to disclose if their employer is doing business with the city or has received financial assistance from the city.
Similar disclosures would also be required of anyone living within a candidate or city official’s household, except for minors.
rsmith@chicagotribune.com
