taxpayer
December 16th, 2003, 01:52 PM
Found this on PoliticsWNY.com
Connecticut and New York are two neighboring states with two similar governors. Connecticut’s John Rowland and New York’s George Pataki were both elected to their third terms last year by wide margins. They are both moderate to conservative somewhat low key Republicans, who have spent most of their terms enjoying broad, if not intense popularity. And both are mired in scandal.
But while the two governors have much in common, their states’ reactions to their scandals could not be more different. Rowland is under intense pressure to resign primarily because he accepted free work on a vacation home from a contractor with state business. Members of Rowland’s staff have been forced to resign amidst what amounts to bribery charges. Adding drama to the situation Rowland admitted lying about who paid for the work on his house and apologized for it. The apology was greeted as an admission by critics and even some traditional foes - even Rowland’s lieutenant governor has been critical.
New York has reacted to Pataki’s scandals with a collective yawn. Over the last year, stories broke about Pataki’s mentor, former senator Al D’Amato "earning" half a million dollars for placing a phone call to the Pataki-controlled Metropolitan Transportation Authority on behalf of a client. A potentially lucrative contract to develop land along the Erie Canal was awarded in what amounted to a no-bid contract for $30,000 to a Republican contributor. Anastasia Song, another friend of Pataki, earned nearly $600,000 working for the Long Island Power Authority in a job that should have paid her a quarter of that amount. Pataki nominated a big contributor, at odds with Pataki’s judicial philosophy on issues such as the death penalty, to the State’s highest court. He also appointed his former bodyguard to the $160,000-a-year inspector general post at the State Power Authority-- plus a $60,000 state pension.
Pataki is not simply accused of taking care of his friends. There’s also the prevailing dynamic of "pay to play," whereby contributors are rewarded with state contracts. Last, the advocacy group Citizen Action reported that, "The Empire State Development Corporation, a public authority run by Governor Pataki's former chief fundraiser, gave more than $100 million in grants and loans to 26 corporations that gave almost $400,000 in campaign contributions to Pataki and the Republican State Party." Some of the grants or loans were awarded on the same day as the recipient firm’s donation was made.
The Pataki authority scandal stories have mostly emerged concurrent with the Rowland scandals, yet nobody is calling for Pataki to step down. The Citizen Action Report was issued in October of 2002. Apparently it had no impact on last November’s election. Why are the two state’s reacting differently?
Each governor is involved in different types of scandals. In New York, there’s an old tradition of distinguishing between the two types. George Washington Plunkitt, the Tammany Hall figure made famous by journalist William Riordon nearly a century ago, explained the difference between "honest" and "dishonest" graft. "Honest graft," which Plunkitt proudly admitted to purveying, basically involved doing a public job and rewarding one’s friends - or even oneself - in the process. "Dishonest graft" was outright stealing. Pataki’s version of "Pay to play" is classic Plunkittonian "honest graft."
Rowland committed "dishonest graft" because he personally benefited from his position outside the context of actually doing a state job. Nobody has credibly charged Pataki from lining his own pockets. And Pataki’s friends are getting appointed to actual state jobs, even if the pay is a tad on the high side. Many New Yorkers see nothing wrong with an elected official helping his or her friends. Or if doing so is not actually a virtue, it is simply so much a part of "business as usual" that there’s no scandal.
Of course there is no real distinction between honest and dishonest graft. Plunkitt’s defense of the indefensible was more a commentary on society’s views on corruption - especially New York society’s views - than it was a logical argument. In a sense, small-scale personal corruption is the lesser crime because it doesn’t necessarily involve broader state policies. Pataki’s "pay to play" state government helps determine which laws pass and which ones don’t. When loyalty and donations replace efficiency and effectiveness as top qualification for state jobs or contracts, the quality of state services is jeopardized. Perhaps most dangerous of all, New Yorker’s acceptance of "business as usual" has eroded the state’s Democratic institutions. Citizens of Connecticut are so outraged at their governor’s missteps that they are trying to run him out of town. New Yorkers gave up trying years ago.
Connecticut and New York are two neighboring states with two similar governors. Connecticut’s John Rowland and New York’s George Pataki were both elected to their third terms last year by wide margins. They are both moderate to conservative somewhat low key Republicans, who have spent most of their terms enjoying broad, if not intense popularity. And both are mired in scandal.
But while the two governors have much in common, their states’ reactions to their scandals could not be more different. Rowland is under intense pressure to resign primarily because he accepted free work on a vacation home from a contractor with state business. Members of Rowland’s staff have been forced to resign amidst what amounts to bribery charges. Adding drama to the situation Rowland admitted lying about who paid for the work on his house and apologized for it. The apology was greeted as an admission by critics and even some traditional foes - even Rowland’s lieutenant governor has been critical.
New York has reacted to Pataki’s scandals with a collective yawn. Over the last year, stories broke about Pataki’s mentor, former senator Al D’Amato "earning" half a million dollars for placing a phone call to the Pataki-controlled Metropolitan Transportation Authority on behalf of a client. A potentially lucrative contract to develop land along the Erie Canal was awarded in what amounted to a no-bid contract for $30,000 to a Republican contributor. Anastasia Song, another friend of Pataki, earned nearly $600,000 working for the Long Island Power Authority in a job that should have paid her a quarter of that amount. Pataki nominated a big contributor, at odds with Pataki’s judicial philosophy on issues such as the death penalty, to the State’s highest court. He also appointed his former bodyguard to the $160,000-a-year inspector general post at the State Power Authority-- plus a $60,000 state pension.
Pataki is not simply accused of taking care of his friends. There’s also the prevailing dynamic of "pay to play," whereby contributors are rewarded with state contracts. Last, the advocacy group Citizen Action reported that, "The Empire State Development Corporation, a public authority run by Governor Pataki's former chief fundraiser, gave more than $100 million in grants and loans to 26 corporations that gave almost $400,000 in campaign contributions to Pataki and the Republican State Party." Some of the grants or loans were awarded on the same day as the recipient firm’s donation was made.
The Pataki authority scandal stories have mostly emerged concurrent with the Rowland scandals, yet nobody is calling for Pataki to step down. The Citizen Action Report was issued in October of 2002. Apparently it had no impact on last November’s election. Why are the two state’s reacting differently?
Each governor is involved in different types of scandals. In New York, there’s an old tradition of distinguishing between the two types. George Washington Plunkitt, the Tammany Hall figure made famous by journalist William Riordon nearly a century ago, explained the difference between "honest" and "dishonest" graft. "Honest graft," which Plunkitt proudly admitted to purveying, basically involved doing a public job and rewarding one’s friends - or even oneself - in the process. "Dishonest graft" was outright stealing. Pataki’s version of "Pay to play" is classic Plunkittonian "honest graft."
Rowland committed "dishonest graft" because he personally benefited from his position outside the context of actually doing a state job. Nobody has credibly charged Pataki from lining his own pockets. And Pataki’s friends are getting appointed to actual state jobs, even if the pay is a tad on the high side. Many New Yorkers see nothing wrong with an elected official helping his or her friends. Or if doing so is not actually a virtue, it is simply so much a part of "business as usual" that there’s no scandal.
Of course there is no real distinction between honest and dishonest graft. Plunkitt’s defense of the indefensible was more a commentary on society’s views on corruption - especially New York society’s views - than it was a logical argument. In a sense, small-scale personal corruption is the lesser crime because it doesn’t necessarily involve broader state policies. Pataki’s "pay to play" state government helps determine which laws pass and which ones don’t. When loyalty and donations replace efficiency and effectiveness as top qualification for state jobs or contracts, the quality of state services is jeopardized. Perhaps most dangerous of all, New Yorker’s acceptance of "business as usual" has eroded the state’s Democratic institutions. Citizens of Connecticut are so outraged at their governor’s missteps that they are trying to run him out of town. New Yorkers gave up trying years ago.