How to Identify and Prevent Pay to Play

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/nyregion/for-astorino-a-conservative-…
article today in the New York <i>Times</a>
</i>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.<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>

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.<br>
<br>
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 <i>quid pro quo.</i> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---