Consider the disdain the Austin Police Association leaders show for local campaign finance law. In Fact Daily reported May 23 that the APA newsletter, The Police Line, sounded quite put upon about criminal complaints alleging illegal APA campaign spending. The newsletter headline read: "A losing campaign tattles on the APA."

Imagine, the police are complaining that someone "tattled" on them when they broke the law! Is it "tattling" when storeowners call the police about homeless people violating the camping ordinance? Is it tattling when neighbors tip police about drug use or sales in their area? These people are reporting violations of law and the police praise them as "crimestoppers" -- why is it different when someone points out the police association violating the law?

The Police Line quoted Detective Sean Mannix, president of AP PAC: "We believe that the [Little Less Corruption] charter amendment, which limits how much money a group or individual can contribute to a candidate, is unconstitutional," said Mannix. "After all this has happened, we plan to file suit against the city in federal court to challenge this."

In other words, Mr. Mannix feels under no obligation to obey a law if he doesn't believe it's just, choosing instead to violate it and to go to court after the fact. Are the police now leaders in civil disobedience, or is this just evidence that the police know they are above the law and can violate it without fear of being held to account?

"The last election was different for us," Mannix said. "The charter amendment (approved by voters in November 1997 to--among other things--limit contributions to candidates to $100 in the general election) forced us to change the way we do business. Instead of contributing larger amounts to candidates, who would decide on how best to run their campaigns, we had to do independent expenditures without strategic communications. Then, when that was called into question (by the criminal complaint) we thought, 'We're jumping through a lot of hoops we may not have to.'"

What APA jumped through was not a hoop, but a loophole. The group took city charter provisions designed to limit special interest financing of campaigns and manipulated them to dominate campaigns with special interest money. APA spent substantially more money promoting Officer Danny Thomas for city council than Thomas' entire campaign from start to finish. Talk about buying influence! If what APA did was permissible then it thwarts the very intentions behind campaign finance reform.

The notion that the police association did not know their expenditures violated city campaign finance laws, both in substance and in their failure to report, is completely bogus. The APA employs local political consultant David Butts on monthly retainer to give political advice, and he certainly knows about the PACs obligations to comply with local campaign restrictions. Moreover, who if not the police can be held responsible for being aware of their obligations under the law. If anyone else were accused of criminal activity and responded, "Oh, I didn't know that was illegal," how much slack do you think the average police officer would cut them? Nil.

Moreover, the APA PAC violated more than just the laws alleged in the complaint. In addition, it's also the case that APA began fundraising prior to the six month cycle mandated in the city charter, fundraising from their members based on, allegedly, their intention to oppose the Sunshine Project. APA raised some of the money they've spent on the May elections prior to the November start date for city council fundraising.

So next time you're pulled over at a traffic stop or the police, for whatever reason, want to search your home or car, tell them that you don't agree with the laws they're trying to enforce and therefore choose to behave as though they don't apply to you. After all, if it works for them ...

Last updated May 23, 2000