You are here
Vote Buying, A Different Sort of Gift
Monday, January 13th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
An
interesting article in today's New York Times focuses on an
unusual feature of an unhealthy local government ethics environment.
This feature is payment for votes, something we think of in terms of
old city machines. In this case, it involved school board elections
in Donna, TX, a town of 16,000. The FBI, rather than local
prosecutors, made the arrests.
What struck me most in the article was the statement of Mary Helen Flores, the founder of Citizens Against Voter Abuse, in Cameron County (the next county east): “The voter apathy here stems from the knowledge that votes are paid for.” Citizen participation is usually hit badly by an unhealthy ethics environment. When votes are actually paid for, those who aren't paid are unlikely to vote. Voting and other citizen participation become meaningless.
What is meaningful, and the reason for this sort of criminal conduct in a school board election, is jobs. The school system is the town's largest employer, and jobs are hard to get. So patronage is what matters. Whether voters are paid with cash, drugs, or promises of a family member getting (or keeping) a job, it really doesn't matter. A patronage-based government is one in which citizen participation is only about jobs, and there is always the fear of losing one's job if one doesn't play one's cards right. This is not a good situation on which to base a healthy democratic government.
The people who pay for votes are known in the area as politiqueras. A woman who worked as a politiquera in Donna told the Times that paying cash or trading drugs for votes had been common in recent elections. But others argued that most politiqueras never pay for a vote, that this isn't a systemic problem. One of the three that were arrested said, "People know me as a people person who would take pennies out of my pocket to help those in need.” That is, she is saying that any payments made were gifts, not bribes.
A Different Sort of Gift Ban
In the government ethics world, the problem is gifts to officials from those seeking benefits from the government. People say that buying an official a meal or a round of golf is just being friendly, that nothing is expected in return. But there is no way for anyone to know. So gifts are restricted.
When it comes to gifts from candidates, whether officials or those seeking to be officials, is it acceptable for them or their agents to give anything to anyone during an election period? How can anyone know that these are not payments for votes? In fact, in a poor area especially, the smaller they are, the more likely they are to be payments for votes. If someone gives a thousand dollars to someone, you can be assured that isn't for their vote, although it could be for the vote of a group, a sort of flip side of bundling.
Perhaps candidates should be held accountable for any gift made by someone working for them to any adult constituent, without the difficult and costly need to prove bribery. As Ms. Flores is quoted as saying, "Until we have candidates who pay for this service who go to jail, they’ll keep paying for votes.” I don't think they have to go to jail, but they certainly shouldn't serve as government officials or employees.
What sorely needs to be done is to have an ongoing public conversation about government in a poor town that depends too much on government jobs. This problem needs to be acknowledged and all ways to deal with it openly discussed.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
What struck me most in the article was the statement of Mary Helen Flores, the founder of Citizens Against Voter Abuse, in Cameron County (the next county east): “The voter apathy here stems from the knowledge that votes are paid for.” Citizen participation is usually hit badly by an unhealthy ethics environment. When votes are actually paid for, those who aren't paid are unlikely to vote. Voting and other citizen participation become meaningless.
What is meaningful, and the reason for this sort of criminal conduct in a school board election, is jobs. The school system is the town's largest employer, and jobs are hard to get. So patronage is what matters. Whether voters are paid with cash, drugs, or promises of a family member getting (or keeping) a job, it really doesn't matter. A patronage-based government is one in which citizen participation is only about jobs, and there is always the fear of losing one's job if one doesn't play one's cards right. This is not a good situation on which to base a healthy democratic government.
The people who pay for votes are known in the area as politiqueras. A woman who worked as a politiquera in Donna told the Times that paying cash or trading drugs for votes had been common in recent elections. But others argued that most politiqueras never pay for a vote, that this isn't a systemic problem. One of the three that were arrested said, "People know me as a people person who would take pennies out of my pocket to help those in need.” That is, she is saying that any payments made were gifts, not bribes.
A Different Sort of Gift Ban
In the government ethics world, the problem is gifts to officials from those seeking benefits from the government. People say that buying an official a meal or a round of golf is just being friendly, that nothing is expected in return. But there is no way for anyone to know. So gifts are restricted.
When it comes to gifts from candidates, whether officials or those seeking to be officials, is it acceptable for them or their agents to give anything to anyone during an election period? How can anyone know that these are not payments for votes? In fact, in a poor area especially, the smaller they are, the more likely they are to be payments for votes. If someone gives a thousand dollars to someone, you can be assured that isn't for their vote, although it could be for the vote of a group, a sort of flip side of bundling.
Perhaps candidates should be held accountable for any gift made by someone working for them to any adult constituent, without the difficult and costly need to prove bribery. As Ms. Flores is quoted as saying, "Until we have candidates who pay for this service who go to jail, they’ll keep paying for votes.” I don't think they have to go to jail, but they certainly shouldn't serve as government officials or employees.
What sorely needs to be done is to have an ongoing public conversation about government in a poor town that depends too much on government jobs. This problem needs to be acknowledged and all ways to deal with it openly discussed.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
