An e-mail exchange between a Hamilton Co. Commissioner and a St. Joseph Co. Commissioner demonstrates just how much "pay to play" is a part of the process by which government business gets conducted. Both a county contract under consideration in St. Joseph County and campaign contributions were discussed in the same e-mails. The e-mails in question were brought to light by the St. Joseph Co. Democratic Chairman, who does not contend any laws were broken.. Apparently, he just wanted to shame the two Republican officials for engaging in "pay to play" politics, which is prosecuted in Illinois and other states, just not here in Indiana.
Hamilton Co. Commissioner Mark Heirbrandt is employed by Ameresco, which is bidding on an energy-saving contract under consideration by St. Joseph County. Deborah Fleming is a St. Joseph Co. Commissioner who sits on a bipartisan committee that will recommend who should receive the contract. Ameresco is competing against Honeywell, Johnson Controls and Performance Services. In e-mail exchanges between Heirbrandt and Fleming, both the contract under consideration and campaign contributions for Fleming's re-election this year were discussed. Yes, folks, that's a very bad thing, even if the Common Cause lobbyist tells the Indianapolis Star the exchange falls short of breaking the law.
The e-mails began in January when Heirbrandt discussed with Fleming a meeting he had conducted with other county officials concerning the contract. Heirbrandt mixes in the e-mail discussions of the work Ameresco planned to do for St. Joseph County with an inquiry into her re-election campaign and whether she needed help with campaign contributions. At that point, Heirbrandt had already contributed $250 in the previous year to Fleming's re-election campaign. "Thanks for the update and thinking of me," Fleming responded. "I am glad you had a good meeting with Raphael and Andy. Anything you can do to help is greatly appreciated. ;) Stay in touch."
Heirbrandt then checks back with Fleming later the same month asking her how much cash she needs to raise for her re-election campaign and how he can help raise money from other vendors. "We think I will need at least $100,000-$120,000 to run my ideal campaign," Fleming responded that same day. "This will include mailers, TV and radio ads, billboards, etc. Thanks for any help you can give!" "I have spoken to several vendors that feel they can help you," Heirbrandt replied several days later. "I will talk to you sometime on Tuesday to discuss." Fleming responded, "Thanks." "I thought I would touch base to see if any progress has been made recently?" Heirbrandt inquired in an e-mail in March in which he again asked about the status of the pending contract.
Fleming, a former St. Joseph Co. GOP Chairman and appointed member of the county commissioners seeking election to public office for the first time, told the Indianapolis Star the discussion of campaign contributions in no way is influencing her position on the contract. "This is the first time I have run a campaign for commissioner, and he offered to help," she said. "That had nothing to do with the contract." Heirbrandt, who is seeking re-election this year, dismissed the suggestion anything was untoward in the e-mails as "ridiculous and a blatant attempt to mischaracterize the truth." He emphasized just that one $250 campaign contribution last year had been made to Fleming's campaign as a fellow county commissioner.
The bigger picture of course is whether Heirbrandt was in a position to direct other vendors to contribute to Fleming's campaign by leveraging his position as a Hamilton Co. Commissioner. That is the implication to be made from his e-mail exchanges suggesting he could help her raise money from other vendors. Why would other vendors be listening to his suggestions on campaign contributions unless it was a way of currying favor with him in his capacity as a county commissioner with contract decision-making authority? It's just an exercise in futility to discuss, though, since "pay to play" has been permissible activity by both federal and state prosecutors in Indiana, even if there's a long list of public officials who've been sent to prison for doing the same thing in neighboring Illinois. The fact that two public officials would so cavalierly discuss campaign contributions and a government contract in the same e-mail demonstrates just how bad things have gotten in the Hoosier state.
No comments:
Post a Comment