[EL] DC corruption and disclosure/intimidation

[Mark Schmitt]

The rapid unraveling of DC's government, including Tuesday's revelation 
of a "shadow campaign" on behalf of Mayor Vincent Gray funded by city 
contractor Jeffrey Thompson offers an interesting case study in the 
questions about disclosure of large electoral expenditures and potential 
"retaliation" by government that Steve Hoersting, Brad Smith, and their 
friend the Senate Minority Leader have been talking about.

According to the Post:

 >>Harris said Thompson 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/home-office-of-dc-contractor-jeffrey-thompson-raided-by-federal-agents/2012/03/02/gIQAOgH4nR_story.html> 
opted to hide his campaign largesse in large part to avoid angering 
Fenty, whose administration his businesses relied on for contracts. The 
Medicaid deal held by his D.C. Chartered Health Plan is the city's 
largest contract: It is worth more than $300 million yearly.

"He did not want the sitting mayor to find out he was supporting his 
opponent," Harris said. "If somehow the sitting mayor won, he would be 
in some serious contractual problems."<<

Harris (the Gray fundraiser who agreed to plead guilty Tuesday) may not 
be telling the truth, or accurately representing Thompson's fears, but 
let's assume she is. In theory, this should be a perfect example of 
exactly what Steve et al have been worrying about -- a businessperson 
fearing retaliation from government for expressing his political views. 
But I don't see the campaignfreedom.org blog rallying to the defense of 
Mr. Thompson.

Perhaps that's because the better way to look at the story is that 
Thompson was not expressing political views so much as covering his 
bets. He has no views other than his interests in getting more 
government money.  He expects to have more clout in a Gray 
administration (especially because that administration will feel more 
obligated to him), but does not want to jeopardize his partial success 
with the Fenty administration. So he makes his expenditures secretly, 
through Harris and other channels. (The implication of the articles is 
that he could have done the same thing openly, which I'm not sure is true.)

Nondisclosure allowed Thompson to basically operate without expressing a 
political choice, by making contributions that he hoped would ensure 
access and influence no matter which candidate won. That seems to me a 
more generalizable explanation for corporations and individuals wanting 
to keep large expenditures undisclosed than is the "retaliation" story. 
And disclosure can provide a strong disincentive to this kind of corruption.



-- 
Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: @mschmitt9
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/cae288e8/attachment.html>