Do Gifts Establish Subordination?
Five years ago, I wrote <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/569" target="”_blank”">a blog post about gifts
and reciprocity</a>, based on a classic anthropological work, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Imagination-Erotic-Life-Property/dp/03947151…; target="”_blank”">Lewis
Hyde's <i>The Gift</i></a>. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mcdonnell-should-beware-of-donor…; target="”_blank”">An op-ed piece in Friday's Washington <i>Post</i></a> by another
anthropologist, Hugh Gusterson, extends this look at gifts by
considering two kinds of gift: those between equals and those
that establish subordination.<br>
<br>
Focusing on gifts to Virginia's governor from the owner of a
pharmaceutical company, Gusterson notes that gifts to politicians
from companies and wealthy individuals tend to establish
subordination. He writes that "the governor can only return
Williams’s generosity by lending him the power of his office in some
way."<br>
<br>
But do these gifts truly establish subordination? Isn't the power of
a governor's office at least equivalent to that of a company CEO? In
fact, it is common for governors, mayors, and even council members
to make it known that CEOs have to make gifts, campaign
contributions, or contributions to a pet charity, or provide jobs to relatives, in order to get a
contract, permit, or grant (known as "pay to play"). Whose subordination do these gifts
establish?<br>
<br>
Gusterson is right to criticize the limitations of federal bribery
laws, which focus on quid pro quo arrangements. But he ignores the
many state and local gift bans that require no quid pro quo. He also
ignores <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/666" target="”_blank”">18
U.S.C §666(a)(2)</a>, which allows federal prosecution of those
who give (or accept) gifts to state or local officials in an amount
greater than $5,000. Proof of bribery is not necessary, but evidence
needs to be shown that the gift was given "corruptly . . . with
intent to influence or reward."<br>
<br>
Gift bans are important not only because they do recognize the
dangers of the reciprocity that comes with making and accepting
gifts, but also because they require far less evidence. Gift ban
violations are, therefore, far easier and less expensive to prove.
In an effective government ethics program, they can prevent most of
the gifts that could be considered bribes under anyone's definition.<br>
<br>
For more on gift bans, see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/files/lgep1-0%20-%20Robert%20Wechsler.htm#Gif…; target="”_blank”">the relevant section of my free digital book <i>Local Government Ethics Programs.</i></a><br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---