Money order users of the District unite. The city council, led by Ward 3’s Mary Cheh, appears ready to discriminate against you, limiting your right and ability to fully participate in city elections.
Where is the American Civil Liberties Union when you need it?
Cheh and six other legislators introduced early this week the “Money Order Restriction Amendment Act of 2012.” The number of co-introducers suggests it is likely to pass. The bill would prohibit any person from making or receiving a political contribution that exceeds $25 using a money order.
“We want to be careful to have an inclusive political process, but do not want to invite mischief,” said Cheh. “This bill is just one simple, straightforward solution to a larger problem.”
The proposal comes after revelations Vincent C. Gray’s 2010 mayoral campaign trafficked in substantial numbers of money orders. The FBI recently raided the home and office of campaign bundler extraordinaire Jeffrey E. Thompson, who allegedly was the source of many of those money orders that may have been used to circumvent local laws.
At-large Councilman Vincent B. Orange also confirmed last week his 2011 special election campaign received several “suspicious” money orders from Thompson and others. He has requested a formal Office of Campaign Finance audit.
No one has been charged with any wrongdoing. But, U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr. has issued several subpoenas to other elected officials for whom Thompson served as a fundraiser.
Cheh may claim she wants an inclusive process. But the council’s knee-jerk legislative proposal squeezes money order users while setting an arbitrary limit on their right to express their political views through financial contributions to their candidate of choice.
As a young girl, I remember my mother paid all her bills using money orders, which she sometimes sent me to the post office to purchase. That practice continued even after she opened a checking account. There are thousands of District residents just like my mother: They like the convenience of money orders; don’t like paying monthly fees to banks; and want to guard against possible identity theft.
Why penalize them? There is a much more acceptable fix to money order abuse by bundlers:
Political committees are required to submit financial reports at predetermined intervals. “[But] they are not required to provide supporting documentation,” OCF’s Public Information Officer Wesley Williams told me. “They are required to keep [those documents] up to three years after they file the final report.”
The council could mandate candidates submit documentation, including copies of money orders, with their relevant reports. OCF staffers could immediately review those documents. Where there appears to be a problem, the agency could begin an investigation; it also could be empowered to halt, at least temporarily, activities of any committee that appears to have violated the law using money orders.
It’s absolutely shocking that elected representatives of citizens whose participation in the democratic process already is limited would even contemplate any action that would further disenfranchise their constituents.
Jonetta Rose Barras’ column appears on Monday and Wednesday. She can be reached at [email protected].
