Is Wealth a Vaccine Against Conflicts of Interest?
Robert Wechsler
Here is an interesting government ethics argument. According to a
Lenore Taylor column in the Guardian this week, mining
billionaire Clive Palmer, who is running for a seat in the
Australian parliament, says that he cannot have a conflict of
interest because he is so rich, he has everything he needs. In other
words, because he cannot be corrupted by money, he does not have
to deal responsibly with a conflict situation, such as the approval
by the government of his multi-billion-dollar coal mining project or
the repeal of the mining tax.
This issue arises at the local level, as well. Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York, is not the only rich person in politics. My little middle-class town of 22,000 is run by a rich person. A principal argument for electing the rich is that they cannot be corrupted by special interests. Monetarily, that may be true. But there are two kinds of problem.
One problem arises when the rich individual is a special interest, as Palmer is. When you run a big company, you have huge obligations to that company's employees, stockholders, and customers. You are a lobbyist, as well. Being rich doesn't make these problems go away. It creates them.
The second problem is that corruption is not only about using government office to benefit oneself financially. Having power allows oneself to help others, including family members, business associates, and friends who may benefit from government decisions. It even includes helping one's favored charities, and having them help you, as with Bloomberg.
In addition, power can lead anyone to deal irresponsibly with his conflict situations and with those of his colleagues and subordinates. None of these problems are in any way affected by the official's wealth, except that wealthy people have more business associates seeking special benefits from their government.
No one is too rich not to have conflicts of interest or not to have to deal with them responsibly. And no one is so poor that they can justify misuse of their office for their or others' personal benefit. It's not about wealth any more than conflicts are just about money.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
This issue arises at the local level, as well. Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York, is not the only rich person in politics. My little middle-class town of 22,000 is run by a rich person. A principal argument for electing the rich is that they cannot be corrupted by special interests. Monetarily, that may be true. But there are two kinds of problem.
One problem arises when the rich individual is a special interest, as Palmer is. When you run a big company, you have huge obligations to that company's employees, stockholders, and customers. You are a lobbyist, as well. Being rich doesn't make these problems go away. It creates them.
The second problem is that corruption is not only about using government office to benefit oneself financially. Having power allows oneself to help others, including family members, business associates, and friends who may benefit from government decisions. It even includes helping one's favored charities, and having them help you, as with Bloomberg.
In addition, power can lead anyone to deal irresponsibly with his conflict situations and with those of his colleagues and subordinates. None of these problems are in any way affected by the official's wealth, except that wealthy people have more business associates seeking special benefits from their government.
No one is too rich not to have conflicts of interest or not to have to deal with them responsibly. And no one is so poor that they can justify misuse of their office for their or others' personal benefit. It's not about wealth any more than conflicts are just about money.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---