You are here
How to Identify and Prevent Pay to Play
Saturday, October 11th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
An
article today in the New York Times
describes a situation that sheds light on pay to play. It involves the Westchester County (NY) county executive, who is
getting special scrutiny because he is running for governor and has,
throughout his career, as well as in this election, been openly
critical of pay to play. He is being accused of hypocrisy, but it
may just be that he does not really understand what pay to play is,
why it is problematic, or how to prevent it.
According to critics, donors who have given the Westchester county executive $900,000 in campaign contributions over the last four years have received $709 million worth of county work. The executive's campaign "scoffed at any causality, noting that contracts must be competitively bid and approved by legislators."
But is this a question of "causality" and, if so, is it limited to bids? There's no doubt that the county executive does not control who is selected to get contracts. But that is not all there is to the procurement process. The county executive and his appointees certainly have input and influence with respect to the process leading up to competitive bids, as well as everything that follows, including extensions, change orders, and the supervision of work and invoicing. A lot of the profit that comes from government contracts comes from what happens, and doesn't happen, in the drafting of RFQs and after the bid is won.
In any event, causality has no meaning with respect to pay to play. In fact, the power and actions of an elected official are not all that relevant to it. Pay to play does not require that the recipient actually do something or even have the power to do something. Pay to play isn't a quid pro quo. Pay to play simply means that making a certain level of contribution prevents a situation where someone else is preferred because they have given and you haven't.
In addition, there is the issue of appearance. $900,000 is a huge amount of money to take from restricted sources. No matter what the recipient actually does, it will look to the public as if he is involved in pay to play.
Both the appearance and the fact are easily dealt with by an elected official. All he has to do is say that he will not accept contributions (or contributions over, say, $200) from current or prospective contractors, developers, grantees, and employees.
That may mean losing the election, especially if the opponent, despite not being an incumbent, is in a position to engage in pay to play. But if one wins, one makes it clear that one can win without pay to play. This might bring a long-lasting change to campaign fund-raising, and to the public's trust in its officials, in one's city or county.
Anyone who is not willing to take this chance should not criticize others for pay to play. And they should stop misrepresenting what pay to play is.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to critics, donors who have given the Westchester county executive $900,000 in campaign contributions over the last four years have received $709 million worth of county work. The executive's campaign "scoffed at any causality, noting that contracts must be competitively bid and approved by legislators."
But is this a question of "causality" and, if so, is it limited to bids? There's no doubt that the county executive does not control who is selected to get contracts. But that is not all there is to the procurement process. The county executive and his appointees certainly have input and influence with respect to the process leading up to competitive bids, as well as everything that follows, including extensions, change orders, and the supervision of work and invoicing. A lot of the profit that comes from government contracts comes from what happens, and doesn't happen, in the drafting of RFQs and after the bid is won.
In any event, causality has no meaning with respect to pay to play. In fact, the power and actions of an elected official are not all that relevant to it. Pay to play does not require that the recipient actually do something or even have the power to do something. Pay to play isn't a quid pro quo. Pay to play simply means that making a certain level of contribution prevents a situation where someone else is preferred because they have given and you haven't.
In addition, there is the issue of appearance. $900,000 is a huge amount of money to take from restricted sources. No matter what the recipient actually does, it will look to the public as if he is involved in pay to play.
Both the appearance and the fact are easily dealt with by an elected official. All he has to do is say that he will not accept contributions (or contributions over, say, $200) from current or prospective contractors, developers, grantees, and employees.
That may mean losing the election, especially if the opponent, despite not being an incumbent, is in a position to engage in pay to play. But if one wins, one makes it clear that one can win without pay to play. This might bring a long-lasting change to campaign fund-raising, and to the public's trust in its officials, in one's city or county.
Anyone who is not willing to take this chance should not criticize others for pay to play. And they should stop misrepresenting what pay to play is.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments