The May Ethical Dilemma: Nominal Political Contributions

This is the May 2024 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think? This series is comprised of case studies from NSPE archives, involving both real and hypothetical matters submitted by engineers, public officials, and members of the public.

Your peers and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have reviewed the facts of the case as shown below. And, here are the results.

Applicable NSPE Code References:

II.3.a
“Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.”

II.5.b
“Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the public as having the effect or intent of influencing the awarding of a contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work, except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.”

III.1.e
“Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession.”

For many years, the engineering profession has been grappling with the ethical issues involved with political contributions by individuals to state and local candidates.

Over the years, the Board of Ethical Review has had to examine the question of political contributions. Case 62-12, the first case of its kind, involved engineers who were officers or partners of various organizations such as consulting firms, construction companies, or manufacturing companies who made it a practice to contribute to campaign funds on behalf of those seeking public office. The engineers also contributed as individuals to both major political parties and in some cases to rival candidates for the same office.

The Board ruled that it was not unethical for an engineer to contribute to a political party or a candidate per se, but it is unethical to make contributions in the expectation of being awarded contracts based on favoritism. The Board began its discussion by noting: “Here we must deal with motivation-what was in the mind of the contributor. It is beyond doubt that the engineer as a responsible citizen has and should have the same opportunity as others to hold political views and support the party or candidate of his choice for political office. Such interest and activity is to be encouraged.”

The Board noted however: “The implication of the facts, however, is that the political contributions were made to curry favor and place the engineer, and through him his firm, in a favorable position to secure contracts through the influence of the candidate elected to a public office which determines the award of such contracts.”

In concluding its discussion, the Board noted: “It is hardly possible to draw a precise line in dollar amounts for the purpose of defining when a political contribution becomes an improper incentive to secure contracts on the basis of favoritism. As in all ethical applications, the only sound rule is that when conduct may raise suspicion and doubt as to motive, it is the better part of wisdom to stay well within the line.”

Thereafter, in Case 73-6, Engineers A, B, and C made political contributions in the sums of $150, $1,000, and $5,000, respectively, to a candidate for governor of the state in which the firms they are associated with as principals are located. The candidate they supported was victorious. Subsequently, the firms in which A, B, and C are principals, received several state contracts for engineering services with total fees ranging from $75,000 to $4 million over a two-year period.

With two members dissenting, the Board found that in the absence of a showing of improper intent, Engineers A, B, and C were not acting unethically at the time they made their contributions, that Engineer A was not unethical for taking state contracts under the circumstances since the contribution was in a nominal amount, but that Engineers B and C were unethical for taking state contracts under the circumstances since their contributions were each over a nominal amount. The dissenting position criticized the majority conclusion that Engineers B and C were unethical noting: “As long as the present system of financing political campaigns is in effect, and in light of the conclusions reached in this case, any engineer who relies on governmental or public works type of engagements for a substantial portion of his practice would have to refrain from acting meaningfully and constructively in the political process. With candidates dependent on donations and contributions for financing campaigns, it is naive to assume that any elected legislator is going to heed the advice or requests for support of legislation and administration by persons who have not given him strong support for his campaign efforts including the financing of such efforts.”

What we are faced with here is a fundamental clash between deeply-rooted ethical principles and a profession faced by the pressures of the business environment. The language in the Code is clear; this Board has interpreted the language on more than two occasions and has been fairly consistent in its BER interpretation. Nevertheless, we continue to hear the refrain from many within the profession that “engineers are pressured into making contributions,” and “it’s a matter of survival.” We must respond, however, that fundamental ethical principles stated in unequivocal terms cannot be bent or broken for economic expediency or gain.

Under the facts of this case, the requested political contribution of $5,000 was not a nominal contribution for the office of chairman of the county board and therefore was in violation of the Code of Ethics. Nominal political contributions should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending upon the nature of the political office involved, the size of the jurisdiction that the public official serves, and other appropriate considerations based upon the unique nature of the office. But with most provisions of the Code, the greatest responsibility falls upon the shoulders of individual engineers who must make a decision based upon their own consciences as to what is appropriate. In this particular case, it is our judgment that a political contribution of $2,000 represents the upper limit of a nominal contribution and therefore is not in violation of the Code.

BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW

Eugene N. Bechamps, P.E.; Robert J. Haefeli, P.E.; Robert W. Jarvis, P.E.; Lindley Manning, P.E.; Paul E. Pritzker, P.E.; Harrison Streeter, P.E.; Herbert G. Koogle, P.E.-L.S., chairman

Note – In regard to the question of application of the Code to corporations vis-a-vis real persons, business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code. The Code deals with professional services, which services must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures. The Code is clearly written to apply to the Engineer and it is incumbent on a member of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its provisions. This applies to all pertinent sections of the Code. This opinion is based on data submitted to the Board of Ethical Review and does not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts when applied to a specific case. This opinion is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the ethics of specific individuals. This opinion may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case.