You are here
The Gifts Dilemma
Monday, December 1st, 2008
Robert Wechsler
There are two principal ways of dealing with gifts to government
officials and employees, and both of them are unsatisfactory, although
certainly better than ignoring them completely. One approach is prohibition, the other disclosure.
Prohibition makes it clear that it is wrong for government officials and employees to accept gifts, at least from anyone who could benefit from government action or inaction. It would be nice if we could only prohibit bribery, that is, gifts given in return for a promise of official action or inaction. But it is extremely difficult to prove bribery. And gifts from interested parties give the impression of bribery, even when bribery cannot be proven. And the appearance that government officials are taking bribes is very damaging to the public's trust in government.
But prohibition of gifts, as with liquor, makes influence go underground or look for other means, for example, gifts to favorite charities or bundled campaign contributions.
The other approach, disclosure, keeps gift-giving visible, but does not make it clear to officials and employees that accepting gifts is wrong. This allows officials to accept gifts to the extent the news media or citizen organizations do not make an issue about them. Disclosure also puts the burden on the news media and citizen organizations, including political parties, which ends up politicizing the ethics process. Instead of ridding politics of gifts, gifts end up becoming political footballs, and this undermines the public's trust.
The City Ethics Model Code gifts provision prohibits gifts from anyone doing business with government (over an annual aggregate of $50), but also provides disclosure language for those who prefer this approach. Neither is a perfect solution, but I think it is best to take a position that accepting gifts is wrong and that, wherever possible, it is best to keep government ethics from being politicized.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Prohibition makes it clear that it is wrong for government officials and employees to accept gifts, at least from anyone who could benefit from government action or inaction. It would be nice if we could only prohibit bribery, that is, gifts given in return for a promise of official action or inaction. But it is extremely difficult to prove bribery. And gifts from interested parties give the impression of bribery, even when bribery cannot be proven. And the appearance that government officials are taking bribes is very damaging to the public's trust in government.
But prohibition of gifts, as with liquor, makes influence go underground or look for other means, for example, gifts to favorite charities or bundled campaign contributions.
The other approach, disclosure, keeps gift-giving visible, but does not make it clear to officials and employees that accepting gifts is wrong. This allows officials to accept gifts to the extent the news media or citizen organizations do not make an issue about them. Disclosure also puts the burden on the news media and citizen organizations, including political parties, which ends up politicizing the ethics process. Instead of ridding politics of gifts, gifts end up becoming political footballs, and this undermines the public's trust.
The City Ethics Model Code gifts provision prohibits gifts from anyone doing business with government (over an annual aggregate of $50), but also provides disclosure language for those who prefer this approach. Neither is a perfect solution, but I think it is best to take a position that accepting gifts is wrong and that, wherever possible, it is best to keep government ethics from being politicized.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
