evolvemedotcom

The role of government is a topic of great debate, and it should be. The topic of this note, however, should be one that we all can agree on. Whether we believe that government has an active role to play in society, should serve a limited purpose overseeing areas unable to be managed privately (such as police powers) or should be somewhere in the middle, hopefully we all are in agreement that those wielding governmental powers should not use those powers for personal gain or to the inappropriate benefit of friends and contributors.

Stories of greed and cronyism within government are so commonplace as to become almost immune to them, and we can perhaps take some solace from the likelihood that the environment in the United States is a healthier one than in many other countries of the world today or throughout history. Being among those with the least amount of corruption should not, however, allow us to become complacent. Every day the news includes examples of both outright corruption by government officials as well as more subtle abuses of the power entrusted to them.

Time need not be spent debating the evil of outright theft, bribery and fraud in government. The motivation for this note is a seemingly minor abuse of power that I read about today. An article in the June 5, 2013 edition of the Wall Street Journal statement notes the following:

“A New York Times investigation revealed how, as attorney general, Mr. [Andrew] Cuomo had threatened Chevron as a favor to plaintiffs alleging pollution in the Amazon rain forest. He was echoed by Democratic Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli (in charge of the state’s investments), who urged Chevron to settle with the plaintiffs. ‘Andrew has no interest in doing this,’ emailed the lobbyist who happened to be a former aide to Mr. Cuomo and wife of one of his current aides. ‘He is doing this for me. Because I asked.'”

Now I have absolutely no idea if this accurately described what occurred, but it certainly has the ring and credentials of a true description. This type of abuse of power should be shocking to all of us, and even more so when the abuser is one encharged with upholding the law.

If I am a conservative, this would be clear evidence that government cannot be trusted and so should have limited powers. Were I a liberal, this would confirm fears that those with powerful friends can influence government actions. The debate as to the role of government will be covered elsewhere, and here we advocate for a system that limits the frequency of these more subtle abuses. As with anything that society wishes to discourage, we need to put in place either incentives for proper behavior or penalties for acting improperly (or both where appropriate). In this case, there should be no incentive to act ethically, so the following focuses on how best to discourage this corruption.

Disincentives should include term limits, severe penalties for these abuses of power and intense media monitoring. In turn:

Term Limits: While term limits have pros and cons (to be discussed in a separate note), from the perspective of corruption term limits would be helpful. It should be beyond debate that many political positions, and certainly all those in federal positions or senior state positions, have become careers instead of roles held by citizens using their talents for the greater good.

Those holding many of these titles are clearly guided in their decisions by the desire to protect their position and with an eye on the next political plum that can be reached. They largely do not have meaningful outside employment and would be hard-pressed to find any alternative position that would provide equivalent power and influence. As a result, their actions are clearly colored by the goal to maintain themselves in power. Even those who enter politics with idealistic views and honor intentions first learn that they need to remain in power in order to achieve their laudable initial goals, then identify further goals that they might be able to achieve by staying in power and thus come to believe that there is never a time to give up the role.

The best way to reduce this perversion is to limit the time that any individual can spend in any political role, whether elected or appointed. If there is a requirement to go quickly back to being a member of the governed class instead of the governing class, then there is no great incentive to do whatever it takes to maintain a grip on power. As a politician could circumvent this by jumping from one role to another, ideally this would include not only particular roles but government service overall.

As this is by no means a guarantee that, once in power, an individual would not act inappropriately – whether to win the next election, assist a friend or curry favor with those who may be of future use to the politician – other steps need to be implemented.

Severe Penalties: This is the one that most appeals and can be addressed in many ways, but the ideal approach would foster a culture of zero tolerance. Activities like that ascribed to Attorney General Cuomo above should be grounds for immediate dismissal from a position of power – and a permanent inability to hold political office at any future point. Any attempt to threaten a citizen or organization, to use power to inappropriately benefit a friend or family member (including their obtaining jobs), to apply extra enforcement powers on (or deny governmental benefits to or use the bully pulpit to damage) those critical of our actions or views or otherwise to deploy the powers invested in them by the people in a manner that is for personal gain or favors should be met immediately with shock, disdain and a pink slip (if not a criminal charge).

It is true that it can be difficult to prove a person’s motivation but there are certain cases that should be of no doubt. Examples include treating opponents differently than supporters in their receipt of government services (see the recent IRS scandal involving the out-sized review given to conservative “tea party” groups), communications threatening or implying particular actions (for example, the above-described attempt by the investor of New York State’s funds to get Chevron to take an action in a private litigation matter, with the obvious implication that the government official could pull investments from Chevron if he wanted to), soliciting jobs or other favors for friends or family or holding press conferences to raise one’s own profile at the expense of another.

For example, an attorney general should never hold a press conference to discuss any on-going investigations unless required to do so by law, and then only facts should be stated – not attempts to influence public opinion (the law should be based upon facts, not marketing and opinion-swaying). Knowingly using weak evidence to make a claim in order to apply pressure and life ones own profile would be another clear example. A succession of recent New York attorneys general with grandiose political ambitions would be evidence number one in exercising these two methods of abuse.

The penalties should be clear and applied with immediate force – you are unqualified for the role that has been entrusted to you and it thus is no longer yours.

Media Monitoring: Happily some of these corruptions come to public knowledge on their own – the above-described news conferences from New York’s attorneys general being but one example. Unfortunately, most are done in secret and orally, without doubt because those who are taking these actions know of their impropriety – for example, Attorney General Cuomo would not likely wish to make a threat such as the above-described alleged threat to Chevron publicly known.

This is thus the perfect role for the media. With their deep contacts, excellence at uncovering dubious activity by those in authority and public platform, society should ensure that the media has as its primary duty keeping politicians honest. In my personal view, it appears as if the media too often either looks the other way (for fear of alienating contacts and authority figures or because the government official’s act comports with the media’s political leanings) or under-resources this most important of their duties. This is even more true when those committing the misdeed are the enforcers themselves – without media oversight, who would police the policemen?

Regardless of our individual views on the proper scope of governmental powers, we surely all agree that whatever powers we grant to those in power over us are to be used honestly, equitably and transparently. We are a nation governed by the rule of law, and if those making and enforcing the law do not themselves uphold the highest ethical standards, then our society will suffer significantly.