Is Benefitting Constituents Representing Them or Benefitting Oneself?

Ted Stevens has been indicted for falsely reporting over $250,000 in services he received from an oil company that renovated his home. He denies the charges.

Whether or not he's guilty of these charges, he is certainly guilty of a conflict of interest that plagues politicians at all levels of government:  identifying himself with his constituency, and abusing his power to benefit his constituents, to his own benefit, at the expense of others whose representatives lack that power.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

As the Economist's Lexington columnist showed so well, Stevens took advantage of a system that made it very easy for him to do what he did.

He didn't even have to run for Senate the first time: he was appointed by the governor, as was the other Alaskan Senator, who was conveniently appointed by her father.

Stevens was elected again and again because of what he brought to Alaska: the largest per capita federal spending (16 years running). Being chair of the Appropriations Committee didn't hurt.

He became chair due to the Senate's seniority system, which gives precedence only to the ability to stick around and, of course, get elected -- or appointed -- when you're young. This rewards those from political families and the extremely ambitious who put themselves in the right place early on.

But the problem is not just in Washington. Alaska's political elite is so closed and tightly tied to oil that some local politicians wear baseball caps embroidered with the letters CBC -- Corrupt Bastards Club. The Stevens scandal is not limited to him: local politicians are part of the mix, including Stevens' son (a state legislator), because it wouldn't be fair not to share your good fortune with your children.

There is a mistaken belief that corruption is about money, but Stevens has never been rich. His renovated home was small. No, for Stevens it was power and what comes with it.

Love and admiration go to your head. He was lovingly referred to as "Uncle Ted." The tributes to him include the Anchorage airport and a federal penitentiary. Federal money to Alaska was called "Stevens money." See my blog entry on the ethics of naming public buildings after serving officials.

It became clear that Stevens felt even above the Senate when he said about objections to building him a bridge to a small Alaskan island served by a ferry:

"I will put the Senate on notice--and I don't kid people--if the Senate decides to discriminate against our state, to take money from our state, I'll resign from this body. This is not the Senate I came to."

After all, it's "Stevens money," his state's due, not the federal government's, and certainly not the American people's. Rejection of pork-barrel spending is "discrimination," at least when it's for his state. And this from a Republican who supposedly opposes big government and wasteful spending. But ideology is easily pushed aside when you're on a roll.

According to the Economist article, things are starting to change in Alaska. People there are starting to feel embarrassed, and fewer will feel like patsies if they don't vote for the guy who brings in the pork. It's likely that Stevens will not be re-elected, and the new governor is supposedly clean. Sometimes things are taken too far, or things are so good that you forget how they got that way.

Stevens is a perfect example of how rules such as a seniority system can distort politics by giving incumbents an increasingly greater advantage and leading politicians to abuse their power to help their constituents, which is not the same as representing their views.

Process is far more important than people think. Not only do the Senate's rules and procedures need to be changed, but many local governments need to take a hard look at their forms of government and their legislative procedures, and determine how they distort politics and encourage the abuse of power.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---