You are here
A New Twist on Charity Abuse by Politicians
Saturday, October 18th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
See below for two updates
I've written a lot about politicians' charities, and how they allow lobbyists and others to get around limits on campaign contributions. But an article in today's New York Times presents a new form of abuse of a politician's charities (although it's not as different as it first seems).
New York's Mayor Bloomberg doesn't just have favorite charities, he is a major supporter of local charities, giving hundreds of thousands of dollars not in the aggregate, but to single charities. Rarely does he ask for anything in return, but apparently the time has come to call in a few chits. The mayor wants to get rid of the term limits law so he can run for a third term, and who better than respected charity heads to talk the mayor up publicly and behind the scenes?
This is not a problem most local governments will have, since there are few local politicians with his kind of wealth. But is there really any difference between a politican who gives his own money to a charity and a politican who lends his name and contacts to a charity, or favors it in the giving of local government contracts?
Charities are great things to support, but as with all aspects of government-private relations, there should not be any favoritism shown by officials, and there should not be any quid pro quo requirements. Favoritism opens the door to contributions intended for the official more than the charity, and nothing should be expected in return, whether the money given is the government's (through contracts), one's own, or others' (as effectively campaign contributions). The charity wins whoever's money it is, but the charity is corrupted, and trust in the integrity of government and charities is undermined.
For other blog entries on the abuse of charities, click here, here, and here.
Update 1: I recommend an article in the next day's New York Times, which looks at the more common practice of giving contributions to politicians' pet charities. The examples are federal, but the principal difference is only which lobbyists and companies make the contributions -- lots of defense contractors in the Times examples, local developers and contractors in local government situations.
Update 2: According to another article in the New York Times, Mayor Bloomberg doesn't seem to know, or isn't willing to acknowledge, the difference between criminal and unethical behavior. "The groups whose support the mayor is seeking have not been offered a quid pro quo or been threatened," the mayor's aides supposedly told the Times. No one has accused the mayor of such criminal behavior. But he doesn't have to do this in order to get his way. All he has to do is ask. That is enough to get action from people whom one gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
I've written a lot about politicians' charities, and how they allow lobbyists and others to get around limits on campaign contributions. But an article in today's New York Times presents a new form of abuse of a politician's charities (although it's not as different as it first seems).
New York's Mayor Bloomberg doesn't just have favorite charities, he is a major supporter of local charities, giving hundreds of thousands of dollars not in the aggregate, but to single charities. Rarely does he ask for anything in return, but apparently the time has come to call in a few chits. The mayor wants to get rid of the term limits law so he can run for a third term, and who better than respected charity heads to talk the mayor up publicly and behind the scenes?
This is not a problem most local governments will have, since there are few local politicians with his kind of wealth. But is there really any difference between a politican who gives his own money to a charity and a politican who lends his name and contacts to a charity, or favors it in the giving of local government contracts?
Charities are great things to support, but as with all aspects of government-private relations, there should not be any favoritism shown by officials, and there should not be any quid pro quo requirements. Favoritism opens the door to contributions intended for the official more than the charity, and nothing should be expected in return, whether the money given is the government's (through contracts), one's own, or others' (as effectively campaign contributions). The charity wins whoever's money it is, but the charity is corrupted, and trust in the integrity of government and charities is undermined.
For other blog entries on the abuse of charities, click here, here, and here.
Update 1: I recommend an article in the next day's New York Times, which looks at the more common practice of giving contributions to politicians' pet charities. The examples are federal, but the principal difference is only which lobbyists and companies make the contributions -- lots of defense contractors in the Times examples, local developers and contractors in local government situations.
Update 2: According to another article in the New York Times, Mayor Bloomberg doesn't seem to know, or isn't willing to acknowledge, the difference between criminal and unethical behavior. "The groups whose support the mayor is seeking have not been offered a quid pro quo or been threatened," the mayor's aides supposedly told the Times. No one has accused the mayor of such criminal behavior. But he doesn't have to do this in order to get his way. All he has to do is ask. That is enough to get action from people whom one gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
