I have all but called for prohibiting mayoral golf tournaments and similar pet nonprofit events,
because they are an unnecessary form of pay to play that is legal primarily
because they help good causes in the community. China, which tends
to take things too far, has gone extremely far in the latest order
of the Communist Party's Central Committee, according to an
article in last week's Economist. In order to lessen
corruption, the Party has prohibited all 88 million of its members
from playing golf.
The question the Economist asks is, are officials corrupt because they play golf, or can they afford to play golf because they are corrupt? In other words, golf is a symptom rather than a cause of corruption, even if secret deals are often done on fairways and in the rough.
Things are different in the U.S. Even the most honest government officials can afford to play golf, although they usually can't afford to join a fancy country club. But mayoral golf tournaments, and other nonprofit ways for high-level officials to help their favorite charities are neither symptoms nor causes. They are a legal means for the misuse of office to help an official's reputation, usually paid for by those seeking special benefits from the government, especially contractors, developers, and grantees.
The latest nonprofit approach — the mayoral booster organization — as exemplified by the NYC mayor's Campaign for One New York and the DC mayor's FreshPAC, takes the mayoral golf tournament into the 21st century. The good news is that, just yesterday, according to the Washington Post, FreshPAC let it be known that it is being shut down due to criticism (it has become a "distraction," its treasurer said). This criticism has not yet worked in New York City.
Golf or no golf, nonprofit arms of government officials are distractions because they are reasonably seen as vehicles for pay to play and for restricted sources to get undue influence and preferential treatment. Golf and support for mayoral programs should not be prohibited, but officials should be prohibited from seeking money, directly or indirectly, from those who seek special benefits from their administrations. Without these restricted sources, there would be no mayoral golf tournaments and no mayoral booster organizations. Prohibit gifts from restricted sources to these nonprofits and PACs, and they need not be prohibited.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics
rwechsler@cityethics.org
The question the Economist asks is, are officials corrupt because they play golf, or can they afford to play golf because they are corrupt? In other words, golf is a symptom rather than a cause of corruption, even if secret deals are often done on fairways and in the rough.
Things are different in the U.S. Even the most honest government officials can afford to play golf, although they usually can't afford to join a fancy country club. But mayoral golf tournaments, and other nonprofit ways for high-level officials to help their favorite charities are neither symptoms nor causes. They are a legal means for the misuse of office to help an official's reputation, usually paid for by those seeking special benefits from the government, especially contractors, developers, and grantees.
The latest nonprofit approach — the mayoral booster organization — as exemplified by the NYC mayor's Campaign for One New York and the DC mayor's FreshPAC, takes the mayoral golf tournament into the 21st century. The good news is that, just yesterday, according to the Washington Post, FreshPAC let it be known that it is being shut down due to criticism (it has become a "distraction," its treasurer said). This criticism has not yet worked in New York City.
Golf or no golf, nonprofit arms of government officials are distractions because they are reasonably seen as vehicles for pay to play and for restricted sources to get undue influence and preferential treatment. Golf and support for mayoral programs should not be prohibited, but officials should be prohibited from seeking money, directly or indirectly, from those who seek special benefits from their administrations. Without these restricted sources, there would be no mayoral golf tournaments and no mayoral booster organizations. Prohibit gifts from restricted sources to these nonprofits and PACs, and they need not be prohibited.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics
rwechsler@cityethics.org
Story Topics:
Blog Image:
