Should Campaign Donors Be Barred from State Contracts?

Should Campaign Donors Be Barred from State Contracts?

Should someone who donates to a campaign be barred from getting a state contract if their candidate gets elected?

The obvious answer seemed to be yes to a state rep—but his efforts to get a law passed outlawing the practice got nowhere in the Rhode Island Legislature last session. “For the life of me, I can’t understand why anyone would be opposed to it,” said Rep. Peter Kilmartin, D-Pawtucket (pictured left).

Last March, his bill was held for further study by the House Judiciary Committee.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Now, Kilmartin, who is running for Attorney General, promises to re-introduce the bill if he is elected. “I thought it would be a good thing for Rhode Island to say, ‘We cleaned things up further,’” Kilmartin said.

A GoLocalProv investigation has revealed former chief legal counsel to Gov. Don Carcieri, Kerry King, recommend the law firm of a friend and donor for a $1.5 million state contract. Kilmartin said his bill was meant to end exactly such practices—known as “pay to play,” which are currently not against the law.

“While by the letter of the law it may have been legal, it doesn’t pass the smell test,” Kilmartin said.

His original bill would have barred businesses with state contracts worth more than $5,000 from donating to the campaigns of office-holders or candidates for office responsible for deciding who gets the contract. Businesses with pending contracts would also have been excluded from making donations.

The ban would have been in effect for two years after the contract expired or was terminated.

Although he is disappointed his bill didn’t pass, Kilmartin didn’t accuse lawmakers of protecting their own self-interest in defeating it. Instead, he said House and Senate members needed more time to review the details of the proposal.