You are here
Special Benefits Via Secret Bills and Amendments
Friday, April 5th, 2013
Robert Wechsler
Yes, another New York state legislator has been arrested on bribery
charges. That's scarcely news. According to an
article in today's New York Times, he was helping developers
get permits to open adult day care centers in his district. In other
words, he was doing local constituency work as a state legislator,
using his influence rather than his votes.
But that's not all. What makes this bribery case unusually egregious is his introduction of a bill to place a moratorium on the construction of competing day care centers. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York referred to the legislator's bill as “an especially breathtaking bit of corruption, even by Albany standards.”
The bill didn't pass before the legislator's arrest, but it very well might have. This raises the question whether legislators should be allowed to sponsor bills, or amendments, that provide benefits to specific businesses, individuals, or entities.
The same question arose recently with respect to a clause that was successfully smuggled into a Congressional budget resolution. This "rider" directly benefited Monsanto, dealing as it did with its genetically modified seeds. It was placed in the bill by one senator, it was not discussed in committee, and it appears that only one other senator's staff caught it, so that he could denounce it on the Senate floor (see the Daily Show's entertaining coverage).
At the very least, when an ordinance or amendment benefits one or a small number of individuals or entities, it should go through all the formal processes, and its benefits should be clearly described in public and the reasons for providing them clearly and honestly given. In addition, a sizeable number of sponsors should be required, from multiple parties or factions.
The problem is effectively the same as the one I discussed in my recent post about New York politicians: discretion. Local officials should not have the discretionary power to help developers, contractors, or grantees through legislation. Legislation is supposed to set policy. Of course, some legislation, particularly regulatory legislation, can benefit some people in an industry over others. But the reasons should be clearly stated. Regulating massage therapy, for example, will favor professional massage therapists over those who lack the training or may be providing extras. There are also health regulations, involving safety and cleanliness.
There should be very few situations where a city or county places a moratorium on a business, as would have occurred in the New York legislator's district. Taxi service in New York City is one instance where there has been a moratorium. But that moratorium has been the subject of public controversy for years. There's nothing sneaky about it.
This is an area that is so important, so much more serious than accepting a bribe for a vote, that the sanctions should be equally serious. If a legislator tries to sneak a benefit through the legislative process, and gets caught, it would not be inappropriate to require that the legislator be forced to resign. It's that egregious an offense.
There may be arguments in favor of the bill, as there are with the rider that benefited Monsanto. But they should be made in committee, before the public, allowing debate by the public before the bill or amendment is passed. The refusal to take the risk that one's arguments will not be sufficiently convincing goes to the heart of our democratic system. It is more corrupt than the acceptance of money for a vote.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
But that's not all. What makes this bribery case unusually egregious is his introduction of a bill to place a moratorium on the construction of competing day care centers. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York referred to the legislator's bill as “an especially breathtaking bit of corruption, even by Albany standards.”
The bill didn't pass before the legislator's arrest, but it very well might have. This raises the question whether legislators should be allowed to sponsor bills, or amendments, that provide benefits to specific businesses, individuals, or entities.
The same question arose recently with respect to a clause that was successfully smuggled into a Congressional budget resolution. This "rider" directly benefited Monsanto, dealing as it did with its genetically modified seeds. It was placed in the bill by one senator, it was not discussed in committee, and it appears that only one other senator's staff caught it, so that he could denounce it on the Senate floor (see the Daily Show's entertaining coverage).
At the very least, when an ordinance or amendment benefits one or a small number of individuals or entities, it should go through all the formal processes, and its benefits should be clearly described in public and the reasons for providing them clearly and honestly given. In addition, a sizeable number of sponsors should be required, from multiple parties or factions.
The problem is effectively the same as the one I discussed in my recent post about New York politicians: discretion. Local officials should not have the discretionary power to help developers, contractors, or grantees through legislation. Legislation is supposed to set policy. Of course, some legislation, particularly regulatory legislation, can benefit some people in an industry over others. But the reasons should be clearly stated. Regulating massage therapy, for example, will favor professional massage therapists over those who lack the training or may be providing extras. There are also health regulations, involving safety and cleanliness.
There should be very few situations where a city or county places a moratorium on a business, as would have occurred in the New York legislator's district. Taxi service in New York City is one instance where there has been a moratorium. But that moratorium has been the subject of public controversy for years. There's nothing sneaky about it.
This is an area that is so important, so much more serious than accepting a bribe for a vote, that the sanctions should be equally serious. If a legislator tries to sneak a benefit through the legislative process, and gets caught, it would not be inappropriate to require that the legislator be forced to resign. It's that egregious an offense.
There may be arguments in favor of the bill, as there are with the rider that benefited Monsanto. But they should be made in committee, before the public, allowing debate by the public before the bill or amendment is passed. The refusal to take the risk that one's arguments will not be sufficiently convincing goes to the heart of our democratic system. It is more corrupt than the acceptance of money for a vote.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments