A New Twist on Charity Abuse by Politicians
<b>See below for two updates</b><br>
<br>
I've written a lot about politicians' charities, and how they allow
lobbyists and others to get around limits on campaign contributions.
But <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/nyregion/18termlimits.html" target="”_blank”">an
article in today's New York Times</a> presents a new form
of abuse of a politician's charities (although it's not as different as it first seems).<br>
<br>
New York's Mayor Bloomberg doesn't just have favorite charities, he is
a major supporter of local charities, giving hundreds of thousands of
dollars not in the aggregate, but to single charities. Rarely does he
ask for anything in return, but apparently the time has come to call in
a few chits. The mayor wants to get rid of the term limits law so he
can run for a third term, and who better than respected charity heads
to talk the mayor up publicly and behind the scenes?<br>
<br>
This is not a problem most local governments will have, since there are
few local politicians with his kind of wealth. But is there really any
difference between a politican who gives his own money to a charity and
a politican who lends his name and contacts to a charity, or favors it
in the giving of local government contracts?<br>
<br>
Charities are great things to support, but as with all aspects of
government-private relations, there should not be any favoritism shown
by officials, and there should not be any quid pro quo requirements.
Favoritism opens the door to contributions intended for the official
more than the charity, and nothing should be expected in return,
whether the money given is the government's (through contracts), one's
own, or others' (as effectively campaign contributions). The charity
wins whoever's money it is, but the charity is corrupted, and trust in
the integrity of government and charities is undermined.<br>
<br>
For other blog entries on the abuse of charities, click <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/239" target="”_blank”">here</a>, <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/349" target="”_blank”">here,</a> and <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/389" target="”_blank”">here</a>.<br>
<br>
<i>Update 1:</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/us/politics/19charity.html">I recommend an article</a> in the next day's New York <i>Times,</i> which looks at the more common practice of giving contributions to politicians' pet charities. The examples are federal, but the principal difference is only which lobbyists and companies make the contributions -- lots of defense contractors in the <i>Times</i> examples, local developers and contractors in local government situations.<br>
<br>
<i>Update 2: </i>According to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/nyregion/20term.html">another article</a> in the New York <i>Times,</i> Mayor Bloomberg doesn't seem to know, or isn't willing to acknowledge, the difference between criminal and unethical behavior. "The groups whose support the mayor is seeking have not been offered a quid pro quo or been threatened," the mayor's aides supposedly told the <i>Times</i>. No one has accused the mayor of such criminal behavior. But he doesn't have to do this in order to get his way. All he has to do is ask. That is enough to get action from people whom one gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---