Is Benefitting Constituents Representing Them or Benefitting Oneself?
Ted Stevens has been indicted for falsely reporting over $250,000 in
services he received from an oil company that renovated his home. He
denies the charges.<br>
<br>
Whether or not he's guilty of these charges, he is certainly guilty of
a conflict of interest that plagues politicians at all levels of
government: identifying himself with his constituency, and
abusing his power to benefit his constituents, to his own benefit, at
the expense of others whose representatives lack that power.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/490">Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.</a>
<br>
<br>
As <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1…; target="”_blank”">the
<span>Economist'</span>s Lexington columnist</a>
showed so well, Stevens took advantage of a system that made it very
easy for him to do what he did.<br>
<br>
He didn't even have to run for Senate the first time: he was appointed
by the governor, as was the other Alaskan Senator, who was conveniently
appointed by her father.<br>
<br>
Stevens was elected again and again because of what he brought to
Alaska: the largest per capita federal spending (16 years running).
Being chair of the Appropriations Committee didn't hurt.<br>
<br>
He became chair due to the Senate's seniority system, which gives
precedence only to the ability to stick around and, of course, get
elected -- or appointed -- when you're young. This rewards those from
political families and the extremely ambitious who put themselves in
the right place early on.<br>
<br>
But the problem is not just in Washington. Alaska's political elite is
so closed and tightly tied to oil that some local politicians wear
baseball caps embroidered with the letters CBC -- Corrupt Bastards
Club. The Stevens scandal is not limited to him: local politicians are
part of the mix, including Stevens' son (a state legislator), because
it wouldn't be fair not to share your good fortune with your children.<br>
<br>
There is a mistaken belief that corruption is about money, but Stevens
has never been rich. His renovated home was small. No, for Stevens it
was power and what comes with it.<br>
<br>
Love and admiration go to your head. He was lovingly referred to as
"Uncle Ted." The tributes to him include the Anchorage airport and a
federal penitentiary. Federal money to Alaska was called "Stevens
money." See <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/475">my blog entr</a>y
on the ethics of naming public buildings after serving officials.<br>
<br>
It became clear that Stevens felt even above the Senate when he said
about objections to building him a bridge to a small Alaskan island
served by a ferry:<br>
<br>
"I will put the Senate on notice--and I don't kid people--if the Senate
decides to discriminate against our state, to take money from our
state, I'll resign from this body. This is not the Senate I came to."<br>
<br>
After all, it's "Stevens money," his state's due, not the federal
government's, and certainly not the American people's. Rejection of
pork-barrel spending is "discrimination," at least when it's for his
state. And this from a Republican who supposedly opposes big government
and wasteful spending. But ideology is easily pushed aside when you're
on a roll.<br>
<br>
According to the <span>Economist</span>
article, things are starting to change in Alaska. People there are starting to feel embarrassed, and fewer will feel like patsies if they don't vote for the guy who brings in the pork. It's likely that Stevens will not be
re-elected, and the new governor is supposedly clean. Sometimes things
are taken too far, or things are so good that you forget how they got
that way.<br>
<br>
Stevens is a perfect example of how rules such as a seniority system
can distort politics by giving incumbents an increasingly greater
advantage and leading politicians to abuse their power to help their
constituents, which is not the same as representing their views.<br>
<br>
Process is far more important than people think. Not only do the
Senate's rules and procedures need to be changed, but many
local governments need to take a hard look at their forms of government
and their legislative procedures, and determine how they distort
politics and encourage the abuse of power.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>