Categories
Quick Analysis

The Problem of “Honest Graft,” Part 2

We conclude an insightful examination of political corruption

by the distinguished former Judge and Prosecutor, John Wilson, Esq. 

Obviously, the more a Councilman or a State Senator meet the needs of their local community organizations, the more encouraged their membership is to support them, and vote Democrat come Election Day.

There is nothing illegal, unethical, or even inappropriate about this process.  This is “honest graft,” and is how political organizations, local community groups, and the legislature have functioned for more than a century.

However, some legislators do not make legal and ethical use of their undesignated discretionary funds.  Among the 30 New York State and City officials who were convicted of “dishonest graft” are those who were convicted of using undesignated funds to pay relatives or support their businesses. An Assembly used hers to purchase a home.  Even the Speaker of the New York Assembly, and the Minority leader, were both convicted of corruption charges.

Clearly, a system which allows a politician to fund the causes of the people from whom that politician seeks support is sure to be abused.  But what is even more pervasive in the use of discretionary funds is the perfectly legal and ethical use of these funds to reward supporters of the politicians smart enough to practice “honest graft” and avoid the dishonest.

Let us take the example of something that occurs in New York City every single day.

Two Pastors have churches in an Assembly Member district.  These pastors get together and create a Community Action Group. Both go to Assembly Member Blowhard for support.  Typically, both are savvy enough to know not to say, “Support us, and we will support your bid for reelection.  We will have you come to our churches and speak from our pulpits, and invite you to our block party, and talk about you to our congregations in glowing terms.”  There is no need to make such statements – it’s understood.

The Assembly Member takes $10,000 from his discretionary fund, and gives it to the “Coming Home With Love” non-profit.  The clergy repeat the process with the local City Council Member, and the State Senator.  The City Council Member gives $5,000, and the State Senator $15,000.  Now this group has a budget of $30,000.

If the recipients are smart, they use some of that money to hold a fundraiser, and make another $20,000 after expenses.  The Assembly and City Council Members each buy a table, as does the State Senator.  Each speaks at the fundraiser, and maybe “Coming Home With Love” gives the Assembly Member Blowhard a plaque for “outstanding service to the community.”  The local news publishes a photo of the legislator receiving their plaque, which publicizes the group and the politician, and their wonderful, charitable work on behalf of the community.

With their $50,000, “Coming Home With Love” hires a staffer (usually the wife of one of them) for $20,000.  They rent space in the other Pastor’s church basement for $20,000 a year, and bring in volunteers from both parishes.  This leaves them $10,000 for their actual “work.”

But by now, you may have noticed that I never told you what exactly this group is doing.  “Outreach to the community” is one goal.  “Support services for victims of violence” is another.  “A safe space for young people.”  “A safe space for seniors.”

But what they actually do is merely open their space, and provide coffee and donuts to the few people who wander in off the street to get warm in the winter.  Maybe they publish a newsletter.  Mostly, they plan next year’s fundraiser.

The leaders have received financial support for their project.  The legislators have received support for their reelection campaigns.  And they’ve all acted legally and ethically.

Kamagra also works in the same type of mechanism as that of generic viagra woman . In general, people who have angioplasty are able to walk around within 6 hours after the meal for the consumption of viagra online . https://unica-web.com/archive/2006/jeunesse2006.html viagra purchase buy It is easy to use pumping method for ED issue. In fact, almost all men cialis pills canada experience infrequent problems of ejaculation at least once in their lives. After a couple of years, “Coming Home With Love” has received larger and large contributions from their local political leaders, and their fundraiser is an annual community event.  They honor five different “community leaders” every year, and each “leader” brings in a table or two of family and friends.  The group’s budget has swelled to over six figures a year.

Now they go to the local District Attorney, who is facing reelection.  Again, they do not have to say to her, “give us money, and we will let you speak from our pulpits, honor you at our dinner, and our church members will volunteer to help your campaign.”  Instead, they say “as part of our commitment to provide ‘outreach to the community,’ and provide a ‘safe space for young people,’ we want to open up our facility to young people with criminal charges pending, and offer them faith-based counseling services.  But we need funding!”

The District Attorney knows that he cannot use his campaign funds for this purpose.  But, his office has its own discretionary fund, designated for the use of “community outreach.”  He can authorize a $100,000 payment from this fund, and after his reelection, the District Attorney announces a “partnership” with “Coming Home With Love,” and orders his assistants to ask the Court to sentence teenage offenders to participate in the program.

Thus, for crimes such as Criminal Mischief or Petit Larceny, or even some low level Assault charges, the offender is given a sentence of a Conditional Discharge – the condition being, participation in the “Coming Home With Love” Community Outreach Program.

The “Coming Home With Love” Community Outreach Program hires two “counselors” – friends or relatives– none of whom has any degree or training in counseling.  The program also buys a cell phone for each staff member, and a computer, so these “counselors” can prepare “reports” on the “progress” of the defendants mandated by the Court to participate in their program.

And what does this “counseling” actually consist of?  Pick-up basketball games.  Gin Rummy.  Once a month, the “counselors” meet with the youths, and discuss their “goals.”

All paid for by you, the taxpayer.  This is “Honest Graft” at its finest.

I knew of a program of this nature while I sat in Brooklyn.  And I refused to sentence anyone to participate.  It didn’t make sense to me to sentence someone with a potential jail alternative to play cards and basketball for crimes such as theft and assault.

Did this refusal to play along endear me to the Brooklyn DA?  I’m sure it didn’t, but no effort was made to bring me into the fold.  There were plenty of other judges willing to cooperate, or who never thought about the connection between the District Attorney and the program.

For better or worse, this is how the political system works.  This is the system funded with your state and city taxes.  Yet at the same time, funding this system is why your taxes are so high in places like New York, Chicago and San Francisco.  While many New York politicians have veered from “honest graft” to the dishonest kind with more frequency in recent years, some level of “honest graft” has been accepted for more than one hundred years across most of our country.

Is there a solution to this problem?  There are several.  Better oversight of spending by politicians. The elimination of discretionary funding.  Continued prosecution of politicians who abuse the public doffers for their own purposes.

But in the end, regardless of whatever reforms are enacted, most political systems will always find some way to service their constituents, and trade influence.  Just like the poor, there will be “honest graft” always, so long as human beings exist.  In the real world, the trick is to find a level of back scratching and hand greasing that does not bankrupt the public coffers.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Problem of “Honest Graft”

We are pleased to present this article by

the distinguished former judge and prosecutor John Wilson, Esq.

George Washington Plunkitt, who served in the New York State Assembly and Senate in the late 1800’s, was the very model of a machine politician.

Plunkitt of Tammany Hall, written by a reporter who interviewed Plunkett over a series of meetings, details the method by which Plunkitt rose to power.  This book is a must-read for anyone interested in the political process, and is as current today as when it was published in 1963.

In particular, GW Plunkitt was a practitioner of “honest graft” – that is, as Plunkitt described it, acting not just in your own self-interest, but at the same time, acting in the interest of one’s political party, one’s state, and for the benefit of one’s constituents.

If you watch the news at all, you will have noticed a plethora of New York politicians being indicted by the US Attorney’s office on a regular basis.  State Senators, Assemblymen, City Council Members; all have faced prosecution on corruption allegations, and many have been convicted and incarcerated for these charges in recent years.  These are practitioners of “dishonest graft” – that is, benefiting them alone.

In fact, according to the New York Times, in the past decade, more than 30 New York City and State legislative members have been convicted of various forms of misconduct, including public corruption.

But what are these modern-day politicians doing that constitutes public corruption?  Aside from the seminal crimes of soliciting and accepting bribes, many have been convicted of the misuse of undesignated, discretionary, public funds.

What exactly are these undesignated funds?  Where do they come from?  And how are they used?

To understand what is illegal, “dishonest graft,” it is best to start with and fully describe, what is legal, “honest graft.”  Since I, like Plunkitt, am most familiar with New York, I will discuss the system employed in New York City and State.  I believe most readers will recognize, however, that there are similar systems in place in almost every jurisdiction in America.  This is particularly true if you live in a big city like Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, Detroit or New Orleans.

Much of what I describe here is obviously oversimplified.  This is an effort to present an overview, not an exhaustively detailed explanation of an extremely convoluted system.  To fully present the workings of municipal government takes much more time and space than is available here.

Besides the taxes you pay to the federal government, most state governments and large city governments, collect their own taxes.  Theoretically, these taxes are collected to finance local activities – police, sanitation, fire, education, and other governmental functions.  The state or city taxing authority collects these funds, and places them at the disposal of the state or city legislature.  Most legislative bodies have a budget, and in that budget, amounts are dedicated for the use of each of these governmental departments.

Here cialis pills online cute-n-tiny.com are a few ideas to help increase one of the most basic functions in human life. The cialis generic cipla price per pill varies slightly depending on the pharmacy, but a consumer can expect to pay prices as low as $1 per pill when they are bought in sufficient quantity. So at some point in the last six months history of priapism, a painful erection that lasts for hours. on line levitra you could check here buy super viagra So always choose foods that digest easily. For instance, in 2014, the Executive Budget of the New York City Police Department was $4.678 billion dollars.  This budget was the result after a proposed budget was presented by the Police Department to the City Council, who then votes to dedicate a portion of overall tax revenue to meet this police budget.

Naturally, the original budget requested by any agency is not always the budget granted by the legislative body, but overall, this procedure for budgeting the use of tax revenue is in use all across the country.

In New York, City and State agencies are not the only entities that make budget requests.  Each New York State and City legislator also requests a budget for the maintenance of their own office.  This covers staff salaries, office supplies and typically, includes an undesignated fund – a pot of unallocated money, not designated for any specific purpose. In fact, the New York State Assembly, the New York State Senate, and the New York City Council, each have their own budgets, and each of their budgets also include an undesignated fund.  This fund is controlled by the leader of each of these legislative bodies, and each can distribute these funds at their discretion.  This makes the Majority leader in the Senate, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the City Council President extremely powerful.

When each member of these legislative bodies submits their budget request, that request is ultimately reviewed by the majority leader of the chamber.  For instance, a City Council member’s budget request is ultimately scrutinized by the City Council Speaker.  It should be understood that “majority leader” refers to the official elected to preside over the chamber by the party which has a majority of the legislators elected to serve in that body from a political party.

In New York, all referenced legislative bodies are currently controlled by the Democratic Party.

You can easily see where this all leads.  Assembly Member A, a Democrat, submits a budget to the Assembly, in which she asks for undesignated funds.  The Democratic majority leader, who serves as Speaker of the Assembly, views this proposal.  If Assembly Member A has been loyal to the majority party, and voted in line with the wishes of the party and the Speaker, then Assembly Member A will be generously rewarded with additional undesignated funds.  However, if Assembly Member A is a dissident, and votes in a way the Majority leader does not approve, that Assembly Member will find much of their budget request denied.

This is how a legislative leader enforces discipline.  Vote for the bill the leader wants, get funding.  Defy the leader, get nothing.  Thus, a loyal member of the majority delegation stands to get a good portion of undesignated discretionary funds for their use.

For instance, suppose former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn wanted to stop an increase in the minimum wage (at the request of then-Mayor Bloomberg).  She would ask the Chairperson of the Committee considering that bill to “table it” – that is, halt consideration of the bill – in that Council Member’s Committee.  In return, that Council Member wants funds to support a day care center in their district.

The bill is tabled with no action in Committee.  A week later, the member gets a response to their funding request from the Council Speaker’s Discretionary Fund.

This quid pro quo is perfectly legal, even ethical.  But what exactly does this legislative body member do with these funds?

They fund Little League.  Senior Centers.  Community organizations.  Pretty much, they fund anything they want to.  For instance, A State Senator funded a Summer Concert Series in the local parks.  A City Council Member funded the activities of local homeowners associations.  These funds pay for gas for a community patrol vehicle, or coffee and donuts for community meetings.

“Honest Graft” concludes tomorrow