What to Do About "Machers"
Earlier this month, a bill came before the Israeli legislature, the
Knesset, called the Machers Bill. Its goal is to expand the
Knesset's lobbying law to the executive branch as well as to
municipalities, something that is rare in American states.<br>
<br>
But what is a "macher"? It's a Yiddish term that, in the U.S., is
most frequently used with respect to people in the Jewish community
who always have their fingers in everything that's going on. They
make (<i>machen</i>) things happen. According to <a href="http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Yacimovich-submits-Olmert-inspired-a…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Jerusalem <i>Post</i></a>, the title of this
particular bill comes from the judge who recently convicted a former Israeli
prime minister of bribery. This case involved what <a href="http://forward.com/articles/128641/what-makes-a-macher/" target="”_blank”">the
Jewish <i>Forward</i>, an American weekly, called</a> "a shadowy
figure ... who has been referred to repeatedly by the Israeli media
as the <em>macher</em> who coordinated everyone."<br>
<br>
Here's what the judge said:<blockquote>
“Use of mediators – <i>machers</i>, as they’re commonly known – to
promote interests in public offices is a common phenomenon in
Israeli public service. <i>Machers </i>can arrange and smooth
matters and bureaucratic processes… This is a fast, comfortable
route that is not open to innocent, regular citizens who take the
normal path… This is an inappropriate and corrupt phenomenon. This
situation deteriorates citizens’ trust in public services and
government institutions. Lawmakers should make the limits of what is
permissible and forbidden clear even in areas of legitimate
lobbying.”</blockquote>
<br>
The problem is that many <i>machers</i> of this sort — what are
known in English as "fixers" or "power brokers" — aren't required to
register as lobbyists, because although they seek to influence, they don't
get directly paid for it. Their role is to make things happen, but
they operate relatively independently. They may not represent
anyone, or they may only officially work for a political party. They
may get paid for giving advice (often about strategy) rather than influencing. They may set up meetings without attending them. They may not perpretrate, but instead organize and be complicit.<br>
<br>
One big-time fixer in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/jersey-sting" target="”_blank”">the Jersey
Sting</a> told an FBI informant, "You don't need to know how I do
something. All you need to know is whether it got done." When it
comes to government, the public needs to know who and how things are
getting done. This is public information.<br>
<br>
It's difficult to include <i>machers</i> in government ethics
programs, because they don't fit the usual definitions of "lobbyist" or "consultant." One way is for ethics commissions to ask them to
participate, to file disclosures and register as lobbyists, even if
they are not required to. The worst they can do is say No. And if
one or more of them say Yes, the pressure is on the others to follow
suit.<br>
<br>
Imagine an ethics training session tailored to <i>machers</i>.
Or even better, one run by a <i>macher!</i> Perhaps every ethics commission could itself be trained by a <i>macher.</i> If local ones are unwilling to spill the beans, an outsider could be invited in. There are lots of
possibilities that are not being tried. But where the state has a good lobbying code, the first step should be to try to get it tailored, as in the Macher Bill, to the local and regional levels, so that those lobbying cities, counties, school districts, water districts, transit districts, and the like could be regulated and required to disclose their lobbying activities in a clear, consistent manner.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---