A Restricted Source Involved in a Preferential Arrest and a Questionable Third-Party Candidacy
Sometimes, conflict of interest matters come disguised as election
law matters. Most of the time, due to secrecy, laziness, or an
inability to draw lines between the dots, no one recognizes the
conflict of interest matter. But sometimes, someone gives the game
away, and it becomes clear how inextricable the two areas can be.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/nyregion/a-seemingly-routine-arrest-f…; target="”_blank”">an
article in today's New York <i>Times</i></a>, the game in Nassau County,
NY (pop. 1.3 million) was putting up a third-party candidate for
county executive in order to take votes away from a major party
candidate. One conflict matter was the arrest of a man who had not
paid a $250 fine. Why was this a conflict matter? Because a tiny
percentage of those who do not pay fines are ever arrested. This
arrest was handled by three police officers, and occurred on a bus.
It was clearly a case of preferential mistreatment.<br>
<br>
What's the connection? The only reason we know, two months after the
arrest, is that the district attorney investigated the matter after receiving a complaint from the arrested individual. The investigation led to the resignation of the county police
commissioner and the retirement of the detective chief. All over a
minor and legitimate, if unusual, arrest?<br>
<br>
What had the guy on the bus done to attract the preferential
mistreatment of his arrest? He had collected signatures for the
candidacy petition of the third-party candidate and then, in an
election law proceeding, said that he had been paid by the signature
rather than by the hour, thereby breaking a New York state law. This
was one of the irregularities that prevented the third-party
candidate from getting on the ballot.<br>
<br>
Here is where the conflict of interest and campaign finance aspects
of the matter get tightly entwined. It turns out that
a developer had almost single-handedly financed the third-party
candidate's campaign (he'd also given $14,000 to the incumbent major-party
candidate, but insists that his support for the
third-party candidate had nothing to do with his support for the
major-party candidate).<br>
<br>
According to the district attorney, after
the signature collector gave his testimony, the developer called the
police commissioner to tell him that the signature collector had
committed perjury and that he'd better act fast or the third-party
candidate may not get on the ballot. The police commissioner called
the detective chief, who opened an investigation and learned about
the signature collector's unpaid fine. He ordered the arrest.<br>
<br>
The problems in this case raise the following issues:<br>
<br>
1. One individual, especially someone who financially benefits from
government decisions, should not be allowed to bankroll a campaign.
In fact, restricted sources should be severely limited in the amount
of contributions they give to a candidate or to a committee or
organization that is permitted to make large contributions to a
candidate that has influence over decisions that affect the
restricted source.<br>
<br>
2. Officials who report to an elected official, as the police
commissioner does to the county executive, should have nothing to do
with election matters involving that official. This should
especially be the case with anyone involved in the criminal jusice
system.<br>
<br>
3. The district attorney could find no evidence that the county
executive knew about the developer's call, the investigation, or the
arrest. It is very difficult to find such evidence. If a subordinate
gets involved with an election matter, it should be presumed that the
superior either knew about the matter or had made it clear that he
didn't want to know about such matters. The subordinate should not
be held solely responsible for it. After all, there was nothing in
it for him, except to keep on the right side of his boss.<br>
<br>
4. When it is believed that a third-party candidate may have been
put up for election primarily to help another candidate win, the
government's election or ethics commission or, if there is none or
they do not act, a good government organization should investigate
and hold at least one public meeting to make it clear to the
community what happened and who was responsible, and to consider
ways to prevent it from happening in the future (the article calls
the fielding of a third-party candidate "a standard ploy of county
politics").<br>
<br>
5. Many ethics laws leave out the important phrase "directly or
indirectly," and they do not prohibit conduct that may lead to political
rather than financial benefits. Note how indirect and political
everything in this matter is. The signature collector was just doing
a minor job. He did not directly benefit from the third-party
candidacy. The police officers who handled the arrest were greatly
distanced from the political benefit that their conduct was supposed
to provide (if any benefit was actually expected beyond revenge for
snitching or lying). The police officers were doing what the
detective chief asked; the detective chief was doing what the police
commissioner asked; the police commissioner was doing what the
county executive asked or expected; and even the county executive's
benefit from the attempt to preserve the third-party candidacy was
indirect.<br>
<br>
The direct political beneficiary (the third-party candidate) was
apparently out of the loop altogether, and the most direct actor,
the developer, would benefit only indirectly from his help in
getting the county executive re-elected. In short, the usual ethics
code language of direct financial benefit would put this matter far
out of reach of an ethics commission. And yet there are several
instances of abuse of office, of preferential mistreatment and,
possibly, of a scheme to misuse a candidacy, all of them to
indirectly benefit someone who says he had nothing to do with the
matter at all.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---