CFB Looks Into 'Pay for Play';
Political Contributions Given
To Provide State Contracts
Or Other Favorable Results.
By Henry J. Stern
February 2, 2005
The
city's Campaign Finance Board has been holding public hearings on how to
deal with one of the most troublesome issues in the funding of political
campaigns, described briefly as "pay to play."
Broadly defined, pay to play refers to the solicitation and receipt of campaign
contributions by corporations and individuals who do business with the government,
or who want to, and whose bottom line would be affected by decisions made
by public officials, whether in the executive or legislative branch.
This is a complicated issue, with a great variety of situations where influence
can be exerted. Today we will begin with some of the simpler cases.
Paying sums of money by cash or check or giving real or personal property
directly to a public official or candidate for office is a crime under federal
and state law. It is bribery if initiated by the corrupt citizen and
extortion if the money is demanded by the official. For those crimes,
those found guilty usually go to prison.
Former State Senator Guy Velella was convicted of a felony, automatically
disbarred, compelled to resign his Senate seat (with his pension intact)
and sentenced, by agreement, to a short stay on Rikers Island for a long-standing
pattern of conduct. He received money from contractors and used his
influence with the state administration to assure that his benefactors received
contracts to provide services to the state, e.g. bridge painting.
Interestingly, the legislator was not bribed to enact or defeat a proposed
law, or to sell his vote in Albany, but to use his considerable political
influence to see that certain corporations were given more consideration
by state agencies than they would ordinarily receive if decisions were made
on the merits.
Senator Velella tried to conceal his acts by requiring the bribers not to
pay him money directly, but to engage the services of his father's law firm.
His father, Vincent Velella, a Republican member of the Board of Elections,
was in his 80's at the time, and whatever legal services he may have performed
were scarcely onerous and most likely unnecessary. The case broke open
when papers were discovered indicating that the senator shared in the profits
of the law firm, and therefore was personally enriched by the contractors'
legal fees. One of the oldest stories in politics, attributed to former
Governor Alfred E. Smith, is that going to law school and being admitted
to practice means that a person could take a bribe and call it a fee.
But what if the senator had not shared directly in the fees of the law firm?
What if the firm had been more discreet and not generated the incriminating
documents that somehow fell into the hands of New York County District Attorney
Robert M. Morgenthau? Don't expect matters of this nature to be prosecuted
diligently in many other counties in New York State.
The Velella prosecution was the source of intense rage expressed by upstate
Republicans as the case proceeded. How dare the New York County DA
interfere in the politics of other counties? Indeed, various pieces
of legislation were drafted which would limit Morgenthau's jurisdiction on
a territorial basis. One senator barred the district attorney from
his office, and refused to speak to him on any matter.
To go back in history a moment, Morgenthau had been appointed United
States attorney for the Southern District of New York by President John F.
Kennedy and served until he was dismissed by US Attorney General John Mitchell,
at the direction of or with the concurrence of President Richard Nixon. His
father was Secretary of the Treasury in the administration of his Hyde Park
neighbor, Franklin D. Roosevelt. His grandfather was minister to Turkey
under President Woodrow Wilson.
Most public officials are not so careless as to receive bribe money directly.
Spiro Agnew demanded and received cash in envelopes, and as a result lost
his office, and his chance for the presidency. Mayor Frank Hague of
Jersey City had a famous desk in his office which opened both on his side
and on the side of his visitors. The favor-seekers left their gifts
in the drawer, and the bounty was removed by opening the drawer from the
other side. Strictly speaking, no money changed hands directly.
The modern sale of influence is more sophisticated. Contractors, concessionaires
and firms doing business with the state, or seeking to do state business,
are given opportunities to contribute to the campaign funds of those who
have influence in government. This is not a crime, it is perfectly
legal. It has some negative effects; it means that state contracts
may go to the most generous contributors, rather than to those who could
do the best job for the taxpayers. It is the new style of political
corruption
In reality, swollen campaign treasuries may amass far more money than is
needed to win an election in the gerrymandered one-party districts that have
been carved by the leadership to protect incumbents. When one retires
from politics, one has considerable latitude in how these funds can be extended.
For example, funds collected as campaign contributions are available
for the legal defense of officeholdersstemming from charges of misconduct
in public office..
We will continue tomorrow, specifically discussing the Jan. 31 hearing of
the Campaign Finance Board and the issues presented there.
Links:
- Times: "Manhattan: Campaign Fund Limits," Metro Briefing, by Mike McIntire (scroll to fifth item), 2/1, pB8
- Sun: "Campaign Finance Board Considers Pay-to-Play Donations," New York Desk, 2/1, p4
|
Henry J. Stern
starquest@nycivic.org |
New York Civic
520 Eighth Avenue
22nd Floor
New York, NY 10018 |
(212) 564-4441
(212) 564-5588 (fax)
|
|