Fear of new tenants' rights laws has made landlords big financial players
in Madison City Council races, and a local political party is charging that
they are ignoring reporting rules.
Progressive Dane co-chairman David Austin filed a letter Friday with the
city clerk accusing the Madison Area Apartment Association of not filing
campaign finance reports as required on Monday and earlier on Feb. 8.
"The failure of the apartment association to file timely and
accurate campaign finance reports renders meaningless the public's right to
know," Austin wrote. "This jeopardizes the ability of our city to
have clean and fair elections."
Eileen Bruskewitz of the apartment association said Friday that she did
not know if the reports had been filed properly, and referred questions to
association officer Noah Fiedler. He did not return several phone messages
to his home Friday evening.
Despite the allegations from Progressive Dane, apartment association
representatives have made no bones about their interest in the aldermanic
races. An edition of the association's newsletter says its members have
raised $35,000 for the races, with another $15,000 pledged. The
association's fund-raising goal is reportedly $100,000.
Bruskewitz told The Capital Times earlier this week that candidates
backed by Progressive Dane are taking too hard a line on recent tenants'
rights proposals that the City Council rejected in February.
"They were pushing the housing ordinances without examining the
underlying issues," she said.
The council narrowly voted down a proposal that would have forced
landlords to accept federal housing vouchers and certificates from
prospective tenants. Another proposal sent back for further committee review
would prevent landlords from using income levels as the only reason to
reject a potential tenant, no matter how good their history of paying rent.
Tenants' rights advocates pledged to push the issues again after
Tuesday's elections.
The association is backing several candidates in close council races, and
the tension over the housing issues is beginning to show in some of them.
District 13 Ald. Napoleon Smith, who has received support from landlords,
sent out a leaflet to residents this week charging that his Progressive
Dane-backed opponent, Matt Sloan, has lied about his record on the housing
issues.
Smith voted with the minority in the decision to reject the ordinance
that would have required landlords to accept tenants with federal housing
vouchers.
"My opponent claims I voted against fair housing. Sounds dramatic,
but this is a total lie," Smith wrote. "It makes you wonder what
else he is lying about."
Sloan defended his criticism of Smith Friday, saying that the incumbent
failed to push the housing ordinances hard enough, giving the apartment
association and others time enough to lobby for their defeat.
Sloan said he has spoken to a number of voters in the district concerned
about Smith's backing from landlords.
District 13 includes the Vilas, Greenbush and South Park Street
neighborhoods.
Ald. Mike Verveer of downtown District 4 said Friday evening that the
heavy involvement by the apartment association in the elections threatens to
polarize the City Council like the Dane County Board. There, land use
disputes frequently divide urban and rural members, and there is a high
degree of organized special interest campaigning.
Verveer is backed by Progressive Dane, though his race is not considered
a close one.
The vehicle that the apartment association has used to back candidates
this year is called a conduit, which differs from a political action
committee.
Unlike a PAC, which can contribute a maximum of $200 per candidate to a
City Council race, a conduit can channel much more money from individual
donors who are members of the conduit's sponsoring group. The donations are
recorded as individual contributions on finance reports, but they are
combined by the conduit administrator into single checks given to the
candidate.
Conduits are legal under state law, but Dane County Clerk Joe Parisi and
campaign finance reform advocates have criticized them, saying that in
effect they allow special interest groups to circumvent political action
committee limits.
