The Gift
Gift disclosure and limitations are an important part of government
ethics. But rarely do we think of what gifts mean. Usually this goes
little further than politicians saying, "I can't be bought."<br>
<br>
But gifts aren't about buying. In fact, gifts are the opposite of
buying, according to Lewis Hyde in his 1983 book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Imagination-Erotic-Life-Property/dp/00992732…; target="”_blank”"><span>The Gift.</a></span> "[A] gift is a thing we
do not get by our own efforts. We cannot buy it; we cannot acquire it
through an act of will. It is bestowed upon us."<br>
<br>
What is most important about gifts for our purposes is what Hyde shows
the reader in his descriptions of gift-giving in primitive and modern
societies: "the giving of a gift tends to establish a relationship
between the parties involved." <br>
<br>
We tend to think of political gifts in terms of quid pro quo, but
something given with the expectation of something in return is not a
gift at all. Even when it just looks a gift is not really a gift, it
bothers us, it doesn't seem right, even when we're not talking about
politicians. We exchange gifts, certainly, but we give them out of
affection, not out of the desire to get something for ourselves. And
when we give gifts to strangers, usually indirectly via charitable
contribution, we expect nothing in return but the satisfaction of
giving.<br>
<br>
When we give a contribution to a politician, it is more self-serving,
but not in any specific way. We want to be represented by someone whose
views coincide with ours, or by someone we think will do a good job.
This isn't really a gift, but an odd sort of investment that might pay
off, but without the expectation of a specific return.<br>
<br>
In our society, gifts are something different from what they used to be
in more primitive societies. Gifts used to be part of a circle of
giving. They were the way a tribe acknowledged and strengthened their
communal relationship. Gifts were not meant to be consumed, at least
not in full, or paid directly back, but passed on through a chain.
Gift-giving was in the public interest. In gift-giving societies, the
big man was the one who gave the most,
not the man who acquired the most.<br>
<br>
Ironically, one of the few gift-giving societies
in our modern culture is the political community, with its patronage
and lobbying, all accomplished using not one's own acquisitions, but
rather gifts that pass into the participants' hands. In a political
community, gifts do pass through a circle. But these are not the gifts
referred to in the gift provisions of ethics code.<br>
<br>
Outside of the political community, the modern chain is usually limited
to two people (although some families and offices create temporary
chains to keep gift spending down), and gift-giving is not in the
public interest. The relationship created by gift-giving is not
communal, but individual. And this is the biggest problem with gifts to
government officials. They create a special relationship with
obligations that often conflict with the official's obligations to the
public interest. This is why one solution to receiving a gift is to
give it to the city, to turn it into a communal gift.<br>
<br>
Of the conflict situation, Hyde wrote, "Because gifts do have the power
to join people together, there are many gifts that must be refused. ...
If I am to negotiate a contract, I do well to pause when the man who
wants my signature offers a three-course meal with wine. For, if
I am a man of goodwill, I may subsequently feel my generosity rise as
the time comes to put my name on the line. A gift, no matter how
well-intentioned, deflects objective judgment. Persons whose
position in society demands that they maintain their objectivity ...
are expected, even required, to refrain from gift exchange."<br>
<br>
In a footnote to this paragraph, Hyde wrote, "The prohibition on gifts
to public servants has always been a problem because our expectations
are conflicting: we want such people to become a part of their
community, but we do not want them to be beholden to one particular
element."<br>
<br>
Yes, gifts to government officials are also bad because they create the
appearance that an official is concerned more with his personal
interests than with the public interest. But there's more than this.
Someone in a position of trust should not be involved in this sort of
gift exchange at all, should not be forming special relationships with
anyone outside of government and family and friends who have nothing to
gain from the particular government.<br>
<br>
It's about obligations and interests, yes, but it's also about
relationships, feelings of gratitude, and the preservation of objective
judgment. Any amount is large enough not to buy someone, but to affect
him emotionally. Anyone who says she can't be bought should be reminded
of this. Even forming friendships with contractors and developers
affects an official's feelings, which is why their meetings should be
limited and, as much as possible, public or not one-on-one.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---