Wages Of Sin Watch

by hilzoy

To my great delight, Rep. Bob Ney, aka "Representative #1" (from Jack Abramoff's plea agreement(pdf)), has decided not to seek re-election:

"Ultimately," he said, "this decision came down to my family. I must think of them first, and I can no longer put them through this ordeal."

Good. It's important that present and future politicians realize that there's a serious price to be paid for corruption.

Meanwhile, just in case any of you missed this story, Brent Wilkes explains how bribery works these days:

"In 1992, Brent R. Wilkes rented a suite at the Hyatt Hotel a few blocks from the Capitol. In his briefcase was a stack of envelopes for a half-dozen congressmen, each packet containing up to $10,000 in checks.

Mr. Wilkes had set up separate meetings with the lawmakers hoping to win a government contract, and he planned to punctuate each pitch with a campaign donation. But his hometown congressman, Representative Bill Lowery of San Diego, a Republican, told him that presenting the checks during the sessions was not how things were done, Mr. Wilkes recalled.

Instead, Mr. Wilkes said, Mr. Lowery taught him the right way to do it: hand over the envelope in the hallway outside the suite, at least a few feet away.

That was the beginning of a career built on what Mr. Wilkes calls “transactional lobbying,” which made him a rich man but also landed him in the middle of a criminal investigation.

Last November, Mr. Wilkes was described as “co-conspirator No. 1” in a plea agreement signed by Representative Randy Cunningham, a California Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. In the plea deal, Mr. Cunningham admitted accepting more than $2.4 million in cash and gifts from Mr. Wilkes and other contractors. Another defense contractor, Mitchell J. Wade, pleaded guilty to paying some of the bribes.

Mr. Wilkes could also figure in a related federal investigation into the House Appropriations Committee. The inquiry has focused on ties between Mr. Lowery, who left Congress and became a lobbyist, and Representative Jerry Lewis, a California Republican who is the chairman of the committee and the former chairman of its Defense Subcommittee.(...)

Offering a rare insider’s view, Mr. Wilkes described the appropriations process as little more than a shakedown. He said that lobbyists close to the committee members unceasingly demanded campaign contributions from entrepreneurs like him. Mr. Wilkes and his associates have given more than $706,000 to federal campaigns since 1997, according to public records, and he said he had brought in more as a fund-raiser. Since 2000, Mr. Wilkes’s principal company has received about $100 million in federal contracts.

Mr. Wilkes described the system bluntly: “Lowery would always say, ‘It is a two-part deal,’ ” he recalled. “ ‘Jerry will make the request. Jerry will carry the vote. Jerry will have plenty of time for this. If you don’t want to make the contributions, chair the fund-raising event, you will get left behind.’ ”"

"Transactional lobbying", indeed.

I hope Brent Wilkes rats out every single politician he bribed. In a perfect world, we would be able to count on our leaders' moral standards and devotion to their country to keep them from selling out the public trust. In this world, we need the deterrent effect of politicians doing time.

Also, two points I make every time I write about this: first, Cunningham, Lowery and Lewis were not just setting up earmarks for planting marigolds by the side of highways. They were corrupting the defense appropriations process. Buying substandard marigolds at taxpayer expense would be a waste of taxpayer money, and a crime. Contracting with substandard firms on defense is much, much worse.

Second, I think that the likelihood that the House leadership did not know that the practices Wilkes details were going on, or about what Cunningham, Abramoff, Ney, et al were up to, is vanishingly small. After all, we're not talking about one rogue representative freelancing; if Wilkes' report is accurate, we're talking about (for instance) the head of the House Appropriations Committee (Lewis) turning the defense earmarking process into his personal ATM.

If the leadership knew, and failed to take even such basic corrective actions as stripping Lewis of his chairmanship, that's just one more reason to start singing along with the latest manifestation of the liberal blogosphere's awesome cosmic greatness (mp3), and throw the rascals out.

(It really is a good song. And in anticipation of whatever happens in Connecticut tomorrow: I think that if the liberal blogs should take credit for anything, it's not affecting this or that race, but making it a lot more fun than it used to be to be politically informed and active.)

Comments

[Slartibartfast]

I hope Brent Wilkes rats out every single politician he bribed.

Agreement!

[Slartibartfast]

That song sounds suspiciously like something lifted from Squirrel Nut Zippers.

[Gary Farber]

I wrote this, myself. (I'm not yet back to full blogging speed, or even half, but I did write a few posts over the weekend; this one was on Saturday.)

[hilzoy]

Slarti: that would be because two of the people from Squirrel Nut Zippers are playing and singing backup.

Next you'll be saying that the lead vocalist sounds like a Ricki Lee Jones wannabe...

Details here.

[Slartibartfast]

If I'd known the details, Gary, I probably wouldn't have acted as if I didn't know them.

Although with me, you never can tell. Thanks for the lead, though.

[JP]

Ney's likely replacement: also slimy!

[Andrew]

Of course, if the federal government didn't have its fingers in so many aspects of modern life, there would be a hell of a lot less money being poured into bribes because the payoff would be so much lower.

I'm just saying.

[KCinDC]

Slimy, JP? How could that be? Yet-to-be-indicted Ney says Padgett is "a person of passion and conviction".

[hilzoy]

Andrew: likewise, if we didn't have any military forces, there wouldn't be a problem with corrupt defense appropriations.

I'm just saying ;)

[Gary Farber]

"If I'd known the details, Gary, I probably wouldn't have acted as if I didn't know them."

Was that addressed to me under my well-known pseudonymn, "Hilzoy"?

[Andrew]

True enough. And I wouldn't fight a reduction in the size of our armed forces once we extricate ourselves from the various headaches we've created for ourselves in order to reduce that problem.

But, unless you're an unbelievably cleverly disguised anarcho-capitalist, I think you and I both agree that when it comes to national defense, we're stuck with some type of government action.

[Anarch]

Of course, if the federal government didn't have its fingers in so many aspects of modern life, there would be a hell of a lot less money being poured into bribes because the payoff would be so much lower.

I'll take that action any day of the week. There'll be just as much money being poured into bribes and it'll be going into the pockets of the people with power, same as today. The key difference is that, unlike today, we won't be able to vote those bastards out.

[Slartibartfast]

Was that addressed to me under my well-known pseudonymn, "Hilzoy"?

Erm, yes. Should I shoot me now, or shoot me later?

[Andrew]

Anarch,

While I do hope I'm proven wrong in November, the evidence suggests that, while we may in theory be able to vote the current people out, in practice we almost never do. Further, businesses don't have the advantage of legalized violence to force people to buy their products. Government, conversely, can declare a winner and use the power of the state to ensure that outcome.

[hilzoy]

Andrew: actually, I'm fine with national defense; just illustrating what I took to be the consequences of accepting the general form of argument you seemed to be proposing ;)

[Anarch]

While I do hope I'm proven wrong in November, the evidence suggests that, while we may in theory be able to vote the current people out, in practice we almost never do.

Well, yes: in a democracy, we get the government we deserve. More's the pity.

Further, businesses don't have the advantage of legalized violence to force people to buy their products.

This depends on exactly how many fingers you want government to remove from modern life, no?

And fwiw, I generally don't have much truck with cries of "legalized violence" since a) the violence invoked is usually theoretical, b) extra-legal (or, for lack of a better term, a-legal) violence isn't any better, and c) there are other means of coercion that don't utilize violence on any other than this theoretical level (e.g. failing to provide food or medical care) which this descriptor (to my eye) egregiously fails to cover.

[Andrew]

hilzoy,

My point is that the more areas the government controls, the more money will flow into the pockets of those who can direct that control. I am not of the opinion that means that we should shut down the government completely, since that would result in more problems than it would solve, but this is part of the reason I believe in reducing the size and scope of the government. Until we do that, attempts at campaign finance reform are doomed to fail.

[hilzoy]

Andrew: so I suppose that my efforts to convince you that public financing of elections would be a good idea are doomed to failure? We might agree, though, on my 'in a perfect world' version of campaign finance reform: an educated citizenry on whom expensive ads would be wasted.

[Andrew]

hilzoy,

I'm afraid so. As long as business sees lobbying as a good investment, they will continue to attempt to influence politics. In many ways, they have little choice, because they risk getting clobbered if they refuse to play, as their competitors may then influence legislation that adversely affects them. I believe there's a term for that in game theory, but it escapes me at the moment.

[Bruce Baugh]

Andrew, I'm not sure the history of political corruption bears out the common classical-liberal wisdom on this matter. From the very inception of the republic, sums large in comparison to (say) wages have been thrown around, and I have honestly no idea what a graphing of bribes and other manipulation spending versus federal expenses or GNP or anything like that would show. But when the state is weak, the spending is just focused more on increasing its power, while when it's strong, more of that spending goes to directing the currently available force.

[hilzoy]

Andrew: I still think that some version of public financing (in some 'sure, you can opt out, if you'd really like to place yourself at a disadvantage' form) would remove one huge area of potential influence -- bigger than I think it seems, given the role of alleged 'campaign' fundraising by people who face no meaningful opposition.

That plus a better and more investigative press, a more informed citizenry, and many highly competent prosecutors might at least help.

[Andrew]

hilzoy,

I think your last three, particularly a better media (which I think we may have a shot at as the blogosphere matures, actually) and a more informed citizenry (for which I'm less hopeful).

[togolosh]

That plus a better and more investigative press, a more informed citizenry, and many highly competent prosecutors might at least help

...and ponies for everybody!!!

[hilzoy]

Andrew: wanna know the truth? The main reason I actually do this, apart from the fact that it turned out to be fun, and the temporary desire to be able to put out arguments before the 2004 election, is the thought that a really well-informed citizenry would solve a whole lot of problems, that this doesn't work in an all-or-nothing way (so that it's either perfection or nothing), and that it is therefore incumbent on us, insofar as we have the chance, to do whatever we can to help, even if it's pretty tiny. Especially given the fact that at the moment, I think, the press isn't doing a very good job.

[togolosh]

On a less snarky note, simply reducing the power of committee chairs would be a big help, since it vastly increases the number of people who need to be bribed.

[Ugh]

On a less snarky note, simply reducing the power of committee chairs would be a big help, since it vastly increases the number of people who need to be bribed.

That might help, though when the return on a lobbying dollar is estimated at something like 100 to 1, decreasing it to 10 to 1 might not knock it down to a low enough level.

[Andrew]

hilzoy,

It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Andrew: so I suppose that my efforts to convince you that public financing of elections would be a good idea are doomed to failure?"

I strongly suspect that the best campaign reform would be 100% transparency in campaign donations.

[Dantheman]

Sebastian,

"I strongly suspect that the best campaign reform would be 100% transparency in campaign donations."

Because you can name a candidate who was defeated due to scandals arising from who his donors were?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Because you can name a candidate who was defeated due to scandals arising from who his donors were?"

That wouldn't be with a view to get rid of particular incumbents or incumbents in general. It is with a view of providing accountability.

[Dantheman]

Sebastian,

First, i did not use the word incumbents -- challengers who were affected by shock over a donor would suffice.

More critically, if no one gets defeated due to this, how does it provide any accountability?

[Anarch]

t is with a view of providing accountability.

More generally, provide accountability by whom? As Andrew noted upthread, it's not like we're lacking for knowledge of corruption in government and yet nothing comes of it. I'm not sure where I stand on donor transparency myself -- I tend to like all transparent government, yet I also like to think that someone should be able to contribute anonymously if they so desire -- but I don't think this will provide additional redress to that which is currently unaddressed.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"More critically, if no one gets defeated due to this, how does it provide any accountability?"

It depends on what you mean by accountability. In the context of campaign finance reform I don't use "accountability" to mean "people who make bad policy decisions get kicked out of office".

The reason I wouldn't define it that way is that it would really mean "people who I think make bad policy decisions get kicked out of office".

In this context, accountability is providing relevant information about a candidate and making a decision on that basis. One way to do so is to clearly show who a candidate's backers are. The candidate can be made accountable by asking questions like: "Why are your largest contributers all agriculture companies that get subsidies?"

[Gromit]

Aren't those sorts of things already available in public filings by the companies in question (assuming they are publicly traded)? Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of transparency in campaign finance, but it seems to me that there is a lot of information available out there about who is funding which campaigns already, and it is far more common for folks to let quid-pro-quo slide by saying "well, that's just the way the game is played", so long as the activity was all above-board. "Everything I did was legal" is considered a moral defense by plenty of folks, in my experience.

[Gary Farber]

"As Andrew noted upthread, it's not like we're lacking for knowledge of corruption in government and yet nothing comes of it."

What do you call Ney pulling out?

[Gromit]

Gary Farber: What do you call Ney pulling out?

The exception that proves the rule?

[Gary Farber]

"The exception that proves the rule?"

Yeah, that makes no sense. Sorry.

Most people don't understand what that phrase means, but use it anyway.

[Matt McIrvin]

Slarti: that would be because two of the people from Squirrel Nut Zippers are playing and singing backup.

And the tune is recycled from "Put A Lid On It", which is what made me initially think it was just somebody's mashup.

[Steward Beta]

Considering that your average congressional critter spent over a million dollars to get elected in 2004, I don't quite understand why anyone is shocked by a little bribery.

“We have the best government that money can buy.” Mark Twain

[Gromit]

Gary Farber: Most people don't understand what that phrase means, but use it anyway.

Perhaps "most people" simply aren't utterly humorless when it comes to the use of language.

[Slartibartfast]

And the tune is recycled from "Put A Lid On It", which is what made me initially think it was just somebody's mashup.

Yeah, that's what I thought too, only there was a tempo change and (I thought; this is based on memory) a key change as well.

[The Fox]

Brent Wilkes is not through hiding, bribing and laundering. I should know. He used to put this crap on my credit cards. If you have any sympathy for this criminal you deserve what he gets. I am going to help them see he gets what he deserves. I know where the skeletons are and the Hilton is way off.