The Missouri Housing Development Commission has been through a rocky period. In June, a state audit criticized it for incomplete record-keeping, conflict-of-interest problems and weak rules on contracting.</p><p> And the panel&rsquo;s executive director was interviewed by the FBI as part of an investigation into low-income housing projects.</p><p>Fortunately, Missouri Treasurer Clint Zweifel, who became commission chair in May, has improved the way the panel does business. He quickly won approval for tougher ethical rules on the commission, which allocates tax credits and issues tax-free bonds to help finance affordable housing projects.</p><p>Under the new policy, a business relationship between commission members and developers must be disclosed. Members must recuse themselves from any related vote.</p><p> A lingering question involves the relationship between commission members and campaign contributors. In September, for example, Zweifel himself benefited from a fundraiser conducted by Sam Hamra of H&H Development Co., which won approval for a project in August. </p><p>Is a relationship between a contributor and commission member a red flag? In a recent meeting with The Star&rsquo;s editorial board, Zweifel drew a distinction between personal business relationships &mdash; subject to the commission&rsquo;s ethics policy &mdash; and campaign contributors. </p><p>Zweifel says he complies with the state&rsquo;s campaign finance laws, and added that he supports a cap on such contributions, which would limit the potential influence of any single donor.</p><p>Contributors, however, have an annoying habit of expecting some sort of payback. Example: Hamra, the developer who held the Zweifel fundraiser, once complained to the then governor, Matt Blunt, that he (Hamra) had received little in the way of commission projects, even though he had raised money for the governor, who was a member of the panel.</p><p>Zweifel has done good work in plugging the commission&rsquo;s ethical loopholes. But his experience with a fundraiser by a contributor who seeks benefits from the commission is another ripe example why the states need limits on contributions.</p><p> Missouri moved into dangerous territory by lifting caps on donations. Big donors bring big expectations. Why put taxpayers at risk of favors going to deep-pocket contributors? Or put politicians at risk of appearing to favor those donors?</p><p>Reasonable caps on individual donors must be reinstituted to avoid even the appearance of benefits flowing to the highest bidder.