[EL] DC corruption and disclosure/intimidation

[Volokh, Eugene]

I appreciate the point below, but is the problem really limited to retaliation by candidates or officials?  I would think it might also involve fear of retaliation by employers, fear of boycott by advocacy groups, and sometimes even fear of loss of friends or alienation from family members, especially when one includes contributions to ballot measure campaigns in the analysis.



A personal perspective:  I was wondering whether I should require that comments on my blog be relatively reliably personally identified (e.g., using Facebook accounts), and what swayed me was something an anonymous commenter said.  I don't remember the exact words, but here's my recollection of the substance:



I'm a law student who's just about to enter on a legal career.  For years to come, I'll be looking for jobs and other opportunities.  If searches for my name will pop us some comment of mine about abortion, or affirmative action, or gay marriage, or whatever else that a prospective employer doesn't like, it'll be so easy for the employer to just look at the next resume in the pile of fifty that he's considering.  So if I can't comment anonymously on those topics, I won't comment at all.



To be sure, the problem is more severe when it comes to comments on issues than on candidates, but I imagine it exists in some measure for both.  What young professional looking hard for a job wants to out himself as a Republican in a Democrat-dominated local professional community, or vice versa?  And I'm not sure what government ethics rules can do about this.



Eugene



> -----Original Message-----

> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-

> bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Wechsler

> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 11:29 AM

> To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu

> Subject: Re: [EL] DC corruption and disclosure/intimidation

>

> Transparency with respect to campaign contributions, or any gifts to officials

> or prospective officials, has one serious unintended

> consequence:  it makes it difficult for an individual to support a candidate or

> official when this might cause another candidate or official to retaliate against

> him.

>

> What the individual risks losing does not have to be as serious and direct as a

> city contract or job. An individual may worry about losing business from those

> supporting other candidates (usually the incumbent) or, where the local

> government has a very poor ethics environment, from losing business

> altogether, especially when the individual is a lawyer, realtor, or other local

> service provider. And the individual doesn't have to own the business that

> may be harmed. An employee will have the same concerns.

>

> This unintended consequence only exists where there is fear of retaliation,

> and this fear exists only in a poor ethics environment. A contractor should

> not believe that he has to give thousands, not to mention hundreds of

> thousands, of dollars to ensure he keeps or increases the amount of his

> contracts. Whenever the fear of retaliation is expressed (privately; such fears

> are almost never expressed publicly) by more than a few people (not

> including the overly wary or people looking for an excuse to hold on to their

> money), there is probably a poor ethics environment. The problem is not the

> transparency, but the ethics environment and those who created it or who

> allow it to continue.

>

> It is no surprise that the campaign chair for the former mayor (the one

> defeated by the current mayor) is now saying that the allegations bring into

> question the legitimacy of the current mayor's administration. Of course, the

> contractor may not really have been afraid of retaliation, but just using this as

> an excuse to hide his decision to cover all the angles. But there are few that

> seem to feel that the D.C. government's ethics environment has been very

> healthy.

>

> Instead of talking about the problem of transparency with respect to

> campaign contributions and other gifts, we should focus our discussion on

> ethics environments and the problem of fear of retaliation. This is a

> legitimate topic for discussion and public hearings by an ethics commission. A

> big scandal should not be required to have this discussion.

>

> Robert Wechsler

> Director of Research

> City Ethics, Inc.

> rwechsler at cityethics.org<mailto:rwechsler at cityethics.org>

> 203-230-2548

> _______________________________________________

> Law-election mailing list

> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>

> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/89a8d0f3/attachment.html>