Bribery loot: Bad. Campaign loot: Good
R.J. Matson/Post-Dispatch
On Thursday, state Rep. T.D. El-Amin, D-St. Louis, pleaded guilty to a federal charge of soliciting and accepting $2,100 in bribes.
Bad. Very bad. As state Rep. Joe Smith, R-St. Charles, told the Post-Dispatch’s Jake Wagman, it causes people to ask, “What are they doing in Jefferson City?”
Part of the answer is this: Soliciting money.
On Wednesday, as El-Amin awaited his day in court and prepared to resign from office, Gov. Jay Nixon’s campaign committee received a $25,000 contribution from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Kansas City.
Since July, Republican Tom Schweich’s campaign for state auditor has received seven contributions of $10,000 or more. In August, state Rep. Steven Tilley, R-Perryville, who probably will be the next Missouri House speaker, received five matching $10,000 donations from a group of nursing homes.
Back at City Hall, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay — who doesn’t face reelection until 2013 — has received five contributions of $5,000 or more since July. One them, from the Clayton law firm in which Steven M. Stone is a partner, came on Sept. 8. That’s the day that developer Paul McKee’s proposed NorthSide development project faced a critical vote at City Hall. Mr. Stone is Mr. McKee’s attorney.
We could go on — we haven’t even mentioned Congress — but all of this? Good. Very good. Free speech at its finest.
El-Amin’s biggest crime — aside from epic stupidity and venality — was his failure to make a distinction between bribery, which is illegal, and taking huge campaign contributions, which the Supreme Court has ruled is a constitutional right.
We have no doubt that some contributors give money because they support the policies and principles of the candidates and aren’t looking for anything in return. We also are certain that many others are looking for a favor, even if it’s only getting a phone call returned.
A bribe is something you can stick in your pocket. A campaign contribution must be used for political purposes. You can use a bribe, for instance, to pay your phone bill. You can’t do that with a campaign contribution, though you can use it to pay the phone bill at your campaign office. Or you can give it to another politician’s campaign.
Section 666 — sometimes called the Devil’s Section — of Chapter 31 of the federal criminal code lays out the difference: The feds have to prove that a public official took something of value in direct exchange for using his official influence. A campaign contribution is something of value, but proving that “quid pro quo” usually makes bribery cases very hard to make.
El-Amin’s case came gift-wrapped.
Public corruption cases make people very cynical about government, so we’re glad the feds unwrapped El-Amin’s gift. But they understand, as we all should, that they caught a minnow. Until all campaigns are publicly financed, far bigger fish legally will swim free.
even it is not illegal, the sort of pervasive practice that the editorial describes is ethically suspect. Worse, it strongly suggests to local residents that their local political leaders can be bought by powerful political interests; it reinforces the cynicism that translates into less than 20% voter participation in local elections.
Even without substantial public financing of campaigns, there might be some steps that local residents could take to at least bring this issue in greater public light. It shouldn’t take Charlie Brennan and the Post Dispatch to bring Paul McKee’s campaign contributions to light. The public disclosure laws of relationships in St. Louis is laughable. Every time April Ford Griffin, Marlene Davis and Francis Slay speak out in a public setting or otherwise participate in public meetings on the McKee plan, they should be required to state or otherwise put into the public record when and how much they have received in campaign contributions from McKee or his proxy companies and when they met with Paul McKee or his lobbyists and the topic of conversation.
Great cartoon by Matson. The Serenity Prayer parody is priceless. We have to find a way to limit campaign spending so that money is not the arbiter of elections, but ideas are what campaigns should be about. Public financing of elections gets us closer, but a constitutional amendment rescinding the idea that spending money is a form of free speech is needed.
It is the same shallow thinking that believes making political contributions illegal is the cure to corrupt politicians also believed that prohibiting the sale of alcohol would cure the drunks. Go after the symtom rather than the desease…why? It is easier. It doesn’t offend the secular code of not advocating…yikes, I may have to say it in print…moral behavior………….yikes, are the secular police on my trail? Just like abstainence is the only 100% answer to unwanted pregnacy, it is too close to moral behavior to tolerate as a promotion. Keep targeting those symtoms……………keep failing to cure the desease
P.S. As my Marine D.I.’s told me a long time ago…….”10% never get the word” In this debate, 90% of politicians are stone cold honest. Ten per cent of them, however, never get the word and would find corruption in a chapel. Weed them out, leave the Constitution alone.
Tartan, I have worked in Jefferson City and in municipal politics and I must disagree with your assessment. 90% of politicians are in this for personal gain while 10% are honest, if that many.
So you support public financing of campaigns, and a prohibition of campaign contributions. Would this also extend to prohibiting labor unions from organizing and electioneering? How about moveon.org? What about media reports on candidate scandals, such as the 11th hour “revelation” that George W. Bush had a DWI decades ago? What about newspaper endorsements?
I dare say that the only thing liberals want to squelch is contributions by corporations and wealthy individuals. When it comes to AFSCME employees or independent expenditures by moveon.org, THAT would be free speech in your world. Right?
Mandating instant and fully transparent records of all money donated to a politician would solve the problem better than public financing.
Simply make it so no money could be deposited into a political bank account until the source had been published online.
I can do it with all of my expenses with little effort. Currently, it takes the right connections and a lot of time to do that for every race.
Sunlight works better than public financing, which makes it even harder to get out incumbents. As for public financing - there are laws on that on the federal level - but Obama decided he preferred the big bucks.
Has the PD condemned him for that, yet, since every month they harp on public financing?
The fact that rich and powerful people give large amounts of public funds to the same politicians that decide on issues isn’t just a political issue. It is also an ETHICAL issue on the part of elected leadership.
How can April Ford Griffin, Marlene Davis and Francis Slay–among others–stand up at public meetings, much less at official meetings where there is a discussion and potential approval for massive amounts of subsidy for Paul McKee, and NOT be required to disclose the $$$s that McKee and his proxies have given to them over the years.
In essence, McKee is buying their support and anyone who thinks otherwise is playing the fool.
> NOT be required to disclose the $$$s that McKee and his proxies have given to them over the years
Sorry, BroBill, but they ARE required to disclose it - and they do. If they didn’t disclose it, you wouldn’t know about it - right?
Mr. Kasoff,
As there is no bill being considered to debate, I must be content with describing my personal version of public financing for elections. It means no private contributions, no exceptions. No money from corporations, nor from unions. No money from the Eagle Forum, no money from moveon.org. Media endorsements are of no consequence; Fox News will continue to endorse conservatives, other outlets will endorse liberals. We are not talking about squelching free speech, we are talking about disabusing ourselves from the cockeyed notion that bribery and graft is a form of free speech. In a perfect world, politicians should spend their hours on the people’s business, not soliciting campaign funds. Our system already supports enough parasites. Candidates would become elected based upon our love, not our money. As it stands, love goes out the door, when money comes innuendo. (Yes, I’m deeply ashamed of that last pun.)