Cannon and Quid Pro Quo
Ex-mayor Patrick Cannon gives us the sad example of what we must fear from government: quid pro quo.
Mr. Cannon did no more than what can be expected from many people; he became friendly with those he did business with. More importantly, and what is missing from his case, those who did business with him most certainly had expectations of what he might do for them.
Early in his political career, Mr. Cannon ran a parking lot business. He rented space to various tenants. Some years ago a list of those tenants made its way into my hands, temporarily, and I quickly noted that of the six listed, five had employees who were very politically involved. Recently, as Mr. Cannon’s business lost some of these tenants, one must ask; are these tenants so moral that they can’t do business with Mr. Cannon any longer or, as occurs to me; they see no reason to continue doing business with Mr. Cannon as the possibilities of quid pro quo no longer exist.
Ms. Lynn Wheeler offers another example. As long time city councilwoman she faced a similar situation. While elected she found herself a desirable member of various committees. She was under the impression those who wanted her membership on these committees and positions desired her abilities. Her illusion was shattered when, upon losing her council seat, she began losing her positions. One must ask: what expectations did those who put her on these committees have? Were they similar to the expectations of the business relationship with Patrick Cannon?
The Wall Street Journal of September 27th carries a book review by Sarah Chayes of Zephyr Teachout’s “Corruption in America“. The review is an excellent read. The book should be fascinating. Anyway, a quote from the review: “The prosecution had to establish a direct connection – a quid pro quo – between these favors and the actions that McDonnell took on behalf of his benefactor, businessman Jonnie Williams. ‘Bob never gave Jonnie anything special’ in return for the largess, the defense contended, arguing that when McDonnell set up meetings for Mr. Williams, or hosted events for him at the governors mansion, he was showing the same courtesy he might have extended to any Virginia businessman. …..But until a few decades ago, Mr. Teachout argues, such gratuitously handsome ‘quids’ would have been anathema, whether or not the politician had helped Mr. Williams in return.”
The author also goes into paid lobbying, or influence peddling. Quoting from the US Supreme Court’s Trist vs Child of 1874 “If any of the great corporations of the country were to hire adventurers who make market of themselves in this way, to procure passage of a general law with a view to promotion of their self-interests, the moral sense of every right-minded man would instinctively denounce the employer and the employed as steeped in corruption, and the employment as infamous.”
Since then Ms. Teachout points out that the Supreme Court has come to equate money with free speech. Is money equal to speech? Perhaps but then again, perhaps not.
What then is the remedy? Ms. Teachout prefers a return to a broad definition of corruption, where it is not so narrowly defined as to be difficult to prove. Her point would be is to preclude the acts, not to punish them after the fact. “If a bribery statute is narrowly drawn…it…does not actually solve problems of money being used to influence policy and undermine representative government.”
To return to the Patrick Cannon case, we find that those who made business deals with him are left without sanctions. They, not being caught, are tacitly approved of. But we know very well how to express disapproval – expressing an untoward thought towards a minority group generates great disapproval from the left. A legislature which takes money away from special interests has generated the group of special interests calling themselves Moral Monday. (A typical hypocrisy of the left as their complaint is often about the money they personally lost.)
None the less, what are these special interests and political flagellators doing about those who seek to purchase favors of the connected? Nothing!
Unless we, the people, condemn those who would buy our representatives as the immoral people they are, we will continue in this sad direction.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=16518
