In a recent edition of Northern California’s

Humboldt County Mirror, county supervisor

and California Coastal Commission chair

Bonnie Neely was pictured with devil’s horns

beside an article about her acceptance of out-

of-town campaign contributions—including

“the pot of cash she got from the So Cal

developer with matters pending before the

Coastal Commission…”

The Coastal Commission is one of the

toughest regulatory bodies in the state, with

the toughest regulations in the nation, and

Neely has shown herself to at least be open

to the idea that some development should

be allowed along California’s coast. So it’s not

surprising that she’s receiving campaign funds

from businesses 700 miles south. After all, if

she were to lose her seat on the Humboldt

County Board of Supervisors, she would lose

her seat on the Coastal

Commission.

Clearly, it made

sense to the developer

to contribute to Neely’s

campaign, but the

sustained publicity the contribution has

received reveals the risks involved with the

fine art of making political contributions.

As a public affairs consultant who has been

involved in the approval of more than

400,000 homes, I’ve participated in many

strategy sessions during election seasons,

and have identified four fundamental ways

our clients approach corporate campaign

contributions:

:: The pragMaTiSTS, who contribute to

those considered most likely to get elected,

so only “winning” investments are made

:: The ideaLiSTS, who contribute only to

those who are likely to support building, even

if it’s unlikely they’ll win

:: The NaveL-gazerS, who balance

electability against support for the industry,

and make highly nuanced contributions

:: The deNierS, who don’t make any

campaign contributions at all, ever

I’ve had clients take each of these

approaches and subsequently get projects

approved.

So which approach iS beST?We can reject the approach of the deniers

out of hand, even though it’s been a winner.

Why? Because every time a company bans

contributions, I’ve seen its employees

making individual contributions and working

overtime to get their consulting team to

do the same. It may

give the corporation

some cover, but it’s a

thin cover that could

be easily pierced

and exploited by

opponents. If cover is what you want, it’s

better to make your contributions via a

building industry PAC. (PAC contributions

are important even if you’re contributing

separately, because the industry’s voice needs

to be heard by the candidates, too.)

As for the pragmatists and idealists,

neither approach works at all times in all

markets in all political climates. For example,

it is obvious the 2010 elections will be

tougher on incumbents in most parts of the

country, so adjustments need to be made

to contribution strategies. Also, do our

recession-wracked budgets really have room

for contributions to pro-growth candidates

who have no chance of winning?

That leaves us with navel-gazing. Since

making campaign contributions is more art

than science, it’s a good option to be left with.

Navel-gazing involves measuring the political

winds precisely, considering likely media and

community ramifications, and talking with

the candidates, then considering all carefully

before getting out your checkbook. It’s a

more difficult approach, but it’s one that will

work in every market, all the time.

One last point: Campaign contributions

are just a form of communications. you

are communicating through your money,

and you are hoping your money will lead to

access—the opportunity to communicate—

after the election. Consequently, the same

rules apply to contributions as apply to all

communications:

:: Prepare your messages, and update them

as circumstances change.

:: Seek to listen, not just to talk.

:: Act only after you’re fully prepared to

respond to negative questions.

:: Disclosure laws covering campaign

contributions vary by state and jurisdiction,

but that doesn’t change the fundamentals

of a good contribution strategy: Always be

prepared to give a reason for your “belief” in

a candidate.

Campaign contributions are just a form of communications.

Campaign contributionsMany theories and many risks

laeR PeaRce

lAER PEARCE

is the president of laer

Pearce & Associates,

a public affairs

firm specializing in

campaigns supporting

land development

and regulatory issues

management.

949-599-1212 :: lAER@lAER.COM :: WWW.lAER.COM

@lPAlAND

c o l u m n s : : B u s i N es s

BNmag.com :: 53