You are here
Government Officials' Charities -- Secretive and Easy to Corrupt
Saturday, December 20th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
I've written a few times about the ways local government officials
misuse charitable organizations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). But there are still
charities-related issues I've missed.
At a session at the recent Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL) conference on loopholes in and end runs around campaign finance laws, David Morrison of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform emphasized the fact that contributions to and expenditures by nonprofits normally need not be disclosed (anyone who gives may ask to be listed as Anonymous). This makes charities the perfect black box for making contributions or gifts to a government official through his favorite charity or a charity over which the official has some influence, either as a board member, through a family member or close associate, or even as a founder, for example, in the case of Rep. Charles Rangel's Rangel School of Public Service.
Few organizations will out their own donors, because this would seriously affect their ability to get donations. When a government official puts a charitable organization in the position of effectively conspiring with donors and the official to hide what are effectively gifts for the purpose of political influence, the official is not only undermining the spirit of campaign finance laws, but also corrupting the people who work for the organization. As with corrupting subordinates, the corruption through co-opting of charity employees and board members is inexcusable.
At the same panel, Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies presented a draft model law on payments influencing candidates and elected officials, which would place the burden of proof on candidates with respect to contributions to organizations over which the candidate has "significant influence." This is not limited to charities, but also includes legal defense funds, inaugural committees, and the like.
Government officials who have significant influence over a charity should be bending over backwards not to allow any of the charity's employees or board members compromise themselves.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
At a session at the recent Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL) conference on loopholes in and end runs around campaign finance laws, David Morrison of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform emphasized the fact that contributions to and expenditures by nonprofits normally need not be disclosed (anyone who gives may ask to be listed as Anonymous). This makes charities the perfect black box for making contributions or gifts to a government official through his favorite charity or a charity over which the official has some influence, either as a board member, through a family member or close associate, or even as a founder, for example, in the case of Rep. Charles Rangel's Rangel School of Public Service.
Few organizations will out their own donors, because this would seriously affect their ability to get donations. When a government official puts a charitable organization in the position of effectively conspiring with donors and the official to hide what are effectively gifts for the purpose of political influence, the official is not only undermining the spirit of campaign finance laws, but also corrupting the people who work for the organization. As with corrupting subordinates, the corruption through co-opting of charity employees and board members is inexcusable.
At the same panel, Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies presented a draft model law on payments influencing candidates and elected officials, which would place the burden of proof on candidates with respect to contributions to organizations over which the candidate has "significant influence." This is not limited to charities, but also includes legal defense funds, inaugural committees, and the like.
Government officials who have significant influence over a charity should be bending over backwards not to allow any of the charity's employees or board members compromise themselves.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
