As the National Guard and U.S. Marines respond to protests in Los Angeles against President Donald Trump’s deportation efforts, a concerning trend is emerging across the nation: public safety is increasingly being distanced from community oversight and control.
In Chicago, this unsettling dynamic is exemplified by a proposed ordinance that would grant the Chicago Police Department (CPD) the unilateral ability to impose ‘snap curfews’ on minors without any checks or balances.
While proponents argue the measure is aimed at enhancing public safety and managing chaos, historical evidence and statistical data suggest otherwise.
The expansion of unchecked police authority, through tactics like curfews and militarized deployments, often undermines the public’s interest.
Such measures centralize power in ways that diminish accountability and heighten the risk of discriminatory enforcement.
This issue in Chicago is aggravated by a less visible but equally troubling trend: the increasing role of private funding in law enforcement.
The growth of private donations to police departments is becoming a national phenomenon.
Through various tax-exempt foundations and nonprofit organizations, police forces, including Chicago’s, now access substantial unregulated private contributions each year.
Following the protests in 2020, an analysis revealed that private donations to police reached unprecedented levels, totaling around $550 million—funds that did not correlate with crime increases or budget deficits but were rather a direct response to opposition against police reform and abolition initiatives.
This unregulated influx of funds bolsters police power and encourages potential abuses.
It allows law enforcement agencies to operate without the direct oversight or financial approval of local governments, providing them with discretionary funds for lobbying efforts and advanced surveillance technologies.
In Chicago, corporate funding directly impacts policing strategies.
For instance, after a donation from 7-Eleven to the Chicago Police Foundation, officers significantly increased their stop rates at the convenience store chain’s locations compared to similar businesses, illustrating the influence such donations can exert on policing practices.
The stakes become dramatically higher with the implementation of a snap curfew ordinance, which would enable the CPD to declare emergency curfews for minors without needing prior consent from the mayor, City Council, or police district councils.
The potential for harm is significant, especially given that curfews have historically been enforced disproportionately against Black and Brown youth, while the proposed plan lacks sufficient transparency.
The combination of enhanced police powers and the growing influence of private donors elicits pressing questions: What occurs when police departments with unregulated financial supporters possess emergency powers?
Whose interests will police prioritize in instances of potential unrest at a donor’s retail establishment?
What if a donor pressures for a crackdown during protests that threaten their business?
These are not hypothetical scenarios.
For example, in St. Louis, a police foundation contributes directly to funding the police chief’s salary.
In Arizona and Illinois, billionaire Howard Buffett has exercised his philanthropic donations to gain law enforcement authority, including direct operational control.
In such a context, a snap curfew would not just be a local policy decision; it would serve as an invitation for wealthy donors to exert their influence unchecked.
Given Chicago’s troubling history of racialized policing and political corruption, granting such authority raises alarms about who ultimately benefits from these measures.
The recent developments in Los Angeles provide a sobering perspective on what can happen when officials prioritize armed response over democratic engagement.
However, the militarization of public safety can also manifest in subtler ways, through hastily passed policies supported by donor funds that often go unnoticed.
Chicago’s snap curfew proposal reflects a trend similar to that seen in cities like Atlanta, where public institutions and communal interests are increasingly overshadowed by private entities seeking advantages from law enforcement.
To cultivate policing that genuinely serves communities, the solution lies not in curfews or crackdowns but in promoting transparency and accountability while establishing a clear division between public authority and private interests.
History serves as a poignant reminder.
In the 1920s, figures like Al Capone held sway within the Chicago Police Department not through overt violence, but through financial means.
In contemporary times, he might circumvent legal barriers entirely by establishing a foundation, lobbying for favorable policies, and providing financial incentives to secure the support of law enforcement.
Thus, it is imperative that residents and policymakers exercise caution as discussions surrounding such ordinances unfold.
image source from：https://southsideweekly.com/opinion-who-benefits-from-a-snap-curfew/
