Honest Graft

So for what seems like forever, I've been reading a book about William Marcy "Boss" Tweed, the infamous ringleader of Tammany Hall at its most corrupt. The book is a biography of Tweed, the only one I could really find that doesn't deal with his life on the periphery. For the most part, Tammany Hall and New York City from the late antebellum period to Reconstruction are the subjects covered in books that are nominally about the Boss. Tweed makes his appearances, but it's usually after his rise and brief stay at the top of Tammany Hall and long after his term in the House (I didn't even know he served a term until I started reading the book). And they always, always present the same image, the Thomas Nast's portrait of Tweed the "Tiger of Tammany." Not to be an apologist or anything, but things always worked as they had for Tweed, and continue to do so up until today. Going after a powerful public official for graft and/or pay-to-play is like going after a CEO for insider trading, or an NBA two guard for traveling. You have to limit yourself to prosecuting the (seemingly) most egregious violations, because everyone takes that extra step. And many times it's not just about the degree of the infraction, but whether or not the person will make headlines or has enough friends in high places, or has a bunch of all-star appearances.
For instance, do you honestly think that what Blagojovich did in Illinois is that uncommon. The governors ability to appoint a senator is something very powerful- of course the person in charge will use it to their own advantage. There are several reasons that Blago is in the trouble that he is- he has ALOT of enemies, particularly the mob connected mayor of Chicago, he was selling off the most high-profile Senate seat in the country, and he was imbecilic enough to talk about it blatantly on the phone even though he knew he was under investigation. If this wasn't the case; well he'd probably still My point when it comes to Tweed and public finance is this- when it comes to public projects, money always disappears, timely political donations will always get your company the job, no-bid or shoddy bid contracts are the rule, not the exception. The feds are currently investigating
For more on that, look at the saga of Bill Richardson. It's full of all this kind of stuff- bid-rigging, donations to re-election campaigns and political action committees, overcharging, the works.

One thing that I've learned from my short time doing public finance research is just how opaque the entire industry is. The oversight levels are paltry compared to the corporate world, there is little disclosure on fees, and the relationships between parties are much closer than arms length. One of the reasons I am interested in public finance is the intersection between government and business, but without any oversight or disclosure, that relationship becomes toxic. What would be great is meaningful oversight- requirements for competitive bids. Pay-to-play, unless it's captured on a wiretap is tough to prove, particularly because while the underwriter on bond deals are forbidden from making political donations, derivative advisors are not barred from making donations. It's all so hard to unwind

And it kind of scares me. I have to admit that I am utterly fascinated by corruption, from the municipal corruption I just highlighted to organized crime to pay-to-play politics, and pretty much everything in between. I love reading about the intertwining of legal and illegal activities, how they all feed each other to make one cancerous sore on the body we call civilization. I guess that's one of the reasons that I loved The Wire so much, because it was a mostly realistic portrayal about how all of those pieces, law enforcement, real estate developers, the unions, the government, drug dealers, unintentionally worked in concert to enhance and force adaptations from the other institutions(not to mention destroy our collective moral fabric). At first glance, my introspection tells me that it's because of my inner cynicism that I am attracted to corruption. But most people who know me would say that I'm not overly cynical, if I had to describe myself I'd say that I was an idealistic realist. Realistic in the sense that you have to know what's going on, adapt and react to the world according to the way it is, not to the way you want it to be. Idealistic because, once you start looking at the world in a realistic manner, actual solutions can be created. Ultimately, the problems that our society has in our institutions (which are big only in some contexts) can be solved, we just need the collective will.

But is there any case where the means (corruption and graft) are justified by the ends? I'm not the first to notice that a lot of public works (including the Brooklyn Bridge, Central Park, the Met) were completed under the Tammany Hall system of "honest graft." Of course, the politicians and the rich got richer on these deals (mostly through buying up the land after they heard it was going to be used for some development). But really, the rich always get richer anyway. Most of the deals being investigated by the Feds on these muni bond deals were for bridges, roads, and hospitals- things done for the legitimate public good. And greasing wheels, whether it's in Tweed antebellum New York or Bill Richardson's modern day New Mexico, has always been used to get things done. We don't have a control really, to see if public works could be done without all of the corrupt practices (at least on a large scale). But people will always act in self-interested ways, try and work their way around the regulations we set in place. If the grease stops one day, will the wheel suddenly stop turning, or just turn much more slowly?

I guess this goes to George Washington Plunkitt's concept of honest graft. If he'd said something like this today he'd be indicted on principle. Today of course, it can't be as outlandish as Plunkitt's examples (although Halliburton's notorious no-bid contracts definitely say otherwise). But it begs the question of whether or not some kind of centralized corruption is, if not necessary, then a minor evil. Then again, Plunkitt was all about machine politics, patronage, and hated civil service reform (a topic for another day). Needless to say, he was one hell of a character. The man saw his opportunities and he took them.