[EL] DC corruption and disclosure/intimidation

[Steve Hoersting]

Thanks, Mark, for the balanced post on disclosure/intimidation or, from
your point of you, disclosure/anti-corruption.

I will take a look,

Steve

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:

>  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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/8f13d2e9/attachment.html>