Hunting for a Clever Pay-to-Play Scheme?
<br>
I don't usually use examples from Congress, but this one is too good,
and instructive. According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/health/policy/13pharm.html" target="”_blank”">yesterday's
New
York <i>Times<i></a>, Billy Tauzin, when he was a Louisiana congressional
representative, started two hunting clubs, whose memberships included
primarily lobbyists and executives of companies with business before
the committee he chaired, the energy and commerce committee.<br>
<br>
He started the first hunting club, for ducks, on a 22-acre plot of land in
Maryland's Eastern Shore, not far from the District of Columbia, back
in the early 1990s.<br>
<br>
Then, in 2003, Tauzin "made a deal. Though still on a modest
Congressional
salary, he paid more than $1 million for a 1,500-acre ranch [in south
Texas]. And
he invited a dozen friends — mostly executives and lobbyists with
interests before his committee — to cover its mortgage by paying him
dues as members of a new hunting club [for deer]. It did business as Cajun Creek
L.L.C., based in the Baton Rouge office of a lobbyist who was a member."<br>
<br>
That's one clever Cajun! And he says that the House ethics committee
approved of both clubs. Another example of how gift provisions cannot
cover every ploy a government official can come up with and why,
therefore, ethics provisions are only minimal standards. An ethics
committee that would give the green light to such a clear pay-to-play
scheme has either little appreciation of government ethics or, as in the case of this self-regulating committee, little interest.<br>
<br>
The next year, Tauzin took an even bigger step. After pushing the
Medicare drug benefit through Congress (not easy work in a Congress full of people concerned about government spending), he secured himself a lobbyist
job with <a href="http://www.phrma.org/" target="”_blank”">Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America,</a> the drug industry association
affectionately or otherwise known as PhRMA. This last year it paid him
$2 million. You can buy a lot of ranches with that kind of money.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/cajun-dressing" target="”_blank”">a
piece on Tauzin in the <i>New Republic</i></a> back in 2003, "Tauzin expresses
supreme confidence in his own
incorruptibility; his stated position on such matters is
invariably: If these folks think that giving me money will buy them
influence, they are sadly mistaken."<br>
<br>
I think he was being truthful. However, he was just covering half the equation of
government ethics. One side of the equation is being bought (or looking
like you've been bought). The other side of the equation is
pay-to-play, demanding benefits in return for supporting a position.<br>
<br>
The news in yesterday's <i>Times</i> article is that PhRMA has fired Tauzin
because, well, in a world with 41 Republican senators, Tauzin's
compromise with the Democrats, whereby the drug companies looked like good guys, now looks like a giveaway. In short, Tauzin's
cleverness got him into trouble at last.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---