Democratic candidates for county commissioner are accusing Republicans of “pay-to-play” government contracts after discovering large donations made by firms with county contracts.
“It does seem like an odd coincidence. So odd that I can’t imagine anyone would take it seriously.” – GOP Campaign Manager Mike WalshOn Dec. 20, 2006, Martin and Cawley decided to pay the firm $200 an hour for legal services. That same day, six of the firm’s attorneys contributed $9,000 to the county GOP, according to an analysis by the Democrats.GOP campaign manager Mike Walsh said the contract renewal raised one Begley attorney’s fee from $125 to $200 an hour and represented the first raise in two years.
Democrats went on to say that on May 21, 2003, the firm was hired to prepare loan documents and the next day firm attorney Jeffrey P. Garton gave the party $500. Garton represents the water and sewer authority, the community college and is chairman of the Bucks County Conservation District.
Walsh chalked up the same-day awarding of contracts and acceptance of contributions to pure coincidence.
“It does seem like an odd coincidence,” he said. “So odd that I can’t imagine anyone would take it seriously.”
Once again
I can’t say how strongly I oppose making links between campaign contributions and gov’t contracts. It simply is not the black-and-white issue it’s made out to be by both parties, many journalists and even by contributors to this website.
IMO, these kinds of accusations only serve to make citizens more cynical and less trusting of government. They don’t do anyone a service.
Making accusations based on circumstantial and probably incomplete evidence is simply wrong-headed.
pd
Beg to differ
“IMO, this kind of accusations only serve to make citizens more cynical and less trusting of government. They don’t do anyone a service.”
Actually, I think its the action of pay to play politics that makes people cynical and less trusting of government. Personally, I would rather see a pledge by both parties to make the process of awarding contracts more transparent, perhaps even declaring publicly that the party has been a political contributor in the past, just to clarify any relationships. I can tell you from experience that in many counties in SE PA that before a contract is awarded, the commissioners will check campaign contributions sheets to see that the parties made contributions to party in power before awarding the contract. That is simply wrong, but it’s standard opperating procedure.
But it does beg the question: if somebody is making those nice generous contributions to a candidate and then getting a contract, what are we supposed to think? I think it’s completely reasonable to at least speculate that it is quid pro quo.
Is everything "play to pay"?
That is my point. Labeling every single thing as either “corrupt” or “pay to play”, is what makes people cynical. I’m sure there are many cases where a contract is indeed awarded competitively to the low bidder and that bidder/awardee may have made campaign contributions. Is that “corrupt” or “pay to play”? What about instances of contract awards to minority enterprises? What if that contract awardee is the sole minority firm capable of producing the service out for bids? What if that company, its employees or its owner also contributes to campaigns? Is that “corrupt” or “pay to play” or is it just how the minority or small business laws are supposed to work?
I’ve set up contract statements of work and seen contracts awarded. I know the first time a service or product is bid out, there might be lots of interested bidders, but the next time the same service or product is opened for bid, the previous winning bidder has a big advantage because they’ve already done the work or produced the product. They know their costs and can now amortize expenses better than the other bidders. They are in much better competitive position and very likely to win subsequent awards which, in turn, make them even more cost efficient. Contracts keep getting awarded to the same firm. Is that “corrupt” or “pay to play” if the company gives campaign contributions?
That’s the problem with the making blanket accusations.
pd
Sure, but...
Sure, but NOTHING in that response to LVDem addresses the main issue of connecting political contributions to those contracts. Of course there are less bidders on a renewal, no one is arguing against that. You’ve got this habit of changing the discussion – let’s keep it on topic. The issue is that contract awards and government business in Bucks County (in particular, not based on your past experience!) seems to be connected to political contributions to the Republican Party.
ethics vs legal
In a technical sense, what happened in this story is completely legal. Unless somebody can prove otherwise, i don’t think anybody is going to jail. However, I think it is highly unethical for the party to be pulling in these contributions when the county is providing contracts. At a minimum, the county party and the commissioners need to recognize that accepting any money opens them up to questions about quid pro quo. In our environment of extreme sensitivity to these issues, I find it politically foolish for anybody to take campaign contributions in that fashion. Did they think that nobody would notice and that when noticed that we would ignore it or not think twice? If anything, it shows the sheer arrogance.
The more I’m around local gov’t and gain information without news filters, the more convinced I am that unethical behavior is excused and tolerated by good people who are interested in accoplishing good works for their community. It would be really great if we could have ethical behavior and the good works, but that first involves seperating ethics from public policy and recognizing that ideology, ethics and policy are not necessarily linked.
Well said, LVDem
I could not agree more. (and you pretty much summed up my own personal code of ethics that I lived by during my gov’t career.)
pd
So far, there's no link
Sorry, but this story does not provide any facts, except circumstantial ones, that there was a quid pro quo. I don’t know how MontCo awards contracts so I can’t say if this is a good, bad or indifferent contract award. (And this is from someone who voted for Joe Hoeffel for US Rep, US Senator, volunteered time and contributed money to his campaign and hopes he and Damsker win the majority of the MontCo county commission seats.)
If you want to assume things based on what is essentially a Democratic press release, go ahead, but I will withhold judgement until some hard facts come to light.
pd
Like I said
Like I said, I’m not saying that any of this is illegal, but it is unethical. Again, ethics and legal are not one in the same. Harp all you want about circumstances and evidence, I’m not talking about a trial, except the one conducted by voters when they cast a vote. However, it would be great if we had ethical behavior from those who are given the responsibility of setting society’s course. And I will point out that the GOP spokesman in this article says that there are some remarkable coincidences in this story, and tries to brush it off by saying that they are so remarkable that they can only be false? What does that mean?
For the record, this story was about Bucks County, not montco.
Strong Ethics Rules
There are examples of strong ethics rules out there that tell government officials and politicians to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of such conflict. This, if nothing else, is the appearance of a conflict of interest.
How much does the county bill out to these firms? Of that money, how much goes directly back into the coffers of Republican candidates? Are these law firms essentially doing pro bono work because they funnel so much money right back to the Republican party? It sure seems like that could be the case. If it is, it’s an insidious attempt by Republicans to funnel taxpayer money right into their own campaigns.
There’s no excuse for this sort of behavior – that’s what makes people cynical. The work of journalists and citizens to bring this to light is an attempt to make government honest again.
Govt is not inherently dishonest
Sorry Stanley, but I don’t buy this idea that government is inherently dishonest. Far be it from me to defend Republicans, but until there are facts, not just circumstantial evidence,
I will withhold judgement here.
pd
You're Right
Oh, you’re right. Let’s just drop it. It’s not even worth investigating or looking into these “strange coincidences.” Let’s just go sign up to knock on doors with Mike Walsh.
No, that's a wrong interpretation
I don’t think I said not to investigate wrongdoing. What I am saying is that jumping to conclusions based on two facts, which may or may not be related, is wrong. Are some people in gov’t, there to help feather their own nests? Undoubtedly yes. But is everyone? No.
pd
Definitions for PD: do they fit this scenario?
corruption (Definition from Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
noun 1 a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : DEPRAVITY b : DECAY, DECOMPOSITION c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery) d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct
Pay-to-play (Definition from Wikipedia)
In politics, Pay to Play is a practice in which public officials award lucrative no-bid government contracts and grant other favors to individuals, businesses, and organizations in exchange for large political contributions. Incumbent candidates and their political organizations are typically the greatest beneficiaries of pay-to-play. Many seeking to ban or restrict the practice characterize pay-to-play as legalized corruption.
The practice also extends, especially in the wake of the McCain-Feingold Bill, to Party Organizations, such as County and State Democratic or Republican Committees. This manner of pay-to-play utilizes “soft-money,” or money which is donated to an intermediary with a higher contribution limit, which in turn donates money to individual candidates or campaign committees.
The practice has come under scrutiny in many states, and is, for the most part, left as a state issue rather than a federal one. Many agencies have been created to regulate and control campaign contributions. Furthermore, many third-party government “watchdog” groups have formed to monitor campaign donations and make them more transparent.
From PA Code on conflict of interest
“The appearance of conflict of interest is as undesirable as an actual conflict of interest and an appearance of impropriety is to be avoided by Commissioners. It is the policy of the Commission that those Commissioners who have a conflict of interest will disqualify themselves from voting on any matter for which the conflict exists. A conflict of interest exists when the vote of a Commissioner is influenced or may appear to the public to be influenced by some consideration apart from the merits of the issue being voted upon. The disqualification of a Commissioner will be a matter of personal decision to each Commissioner.”
I am not arguing against ethics
Just to be clear, I am NOT arguing against ethical government. I am arguing against jumping to conclusions.
pd
Then What Do You Propose
Based on this discussion and prior ones, I’d honestly like to hear a specific proposal from you on how the media, bloggers, and citizens should go about trying to uncover these issues, and how you expect they should report them. Because every time we run a story like this, you tell us we’ve jumped to conclusions and that we’re doing a disservice to political discourse.
Find out the background information
First, I would find out as much background information as I could. In this case, perhaps starting with the rules for contract awards in Bucks County. Then I would look to see how many law firms might be capable of providing the particular service in question. I might also look to see the political donations of each law firm and perhaps the individual partners understanding that individual donations less than $250 do not show up in the FEC campaign database. I might check to see how many contracts were awarded to each law firm I identified and how long each contract ran and who it was with. I would check the local papers and archives for requests for bids involving the work you think is being awarded wrongly. I would look to see if minority and small business contract award rules exist and/or apply and if any of the firms you identified would qualify under those criteria.
I would ask a questions like in the case of all other things being equal, is it unreasonable to hire lawyers or law firms that agree with one’s particular partisan agenda? I would want to ask about the performance of the firms? Did they provide professional and non-partisan advice or not?
Those are just a few things off the top of my head. I don’t have any problem with citizen journalism, but it’s hard work and probably full-time job.
As for a specific policy perscription, perhaps something like a qualified service-provider list where contracts are awarded on a rotating basis would work for local governments.
pd
That makes sense...
But you and I both know the economics of that, both in time and money, are impossible for a site like this. So we rely on the mainstream media to uncover these stories. Which they did in this case; like it or not, we relied on Jenna Portroy’s work in the Bucks County Courier Times. It’s not like we made this up.
I agree
Yes and I have no problem relying on traditional media. OTOH, I think it is fair for us to ask questions about the reporting. To me, that is where citizen journalism comes in, asking questions to uncover sloppy reporting or unwarranted conclusions or new facts. No one would be happier than I would if we at KP, or our readers, were able to uncover a concrete link to campaign contributions and contracts awarded to this particular firm.
pd
Pay to Play
While not passing judgement on the Bucks County Commission, it should surprise no one if, indeed, there has been payola.
Such deals are not uncommon to municipal and federal elected officials as well as others. However, the ill-conceived county commission form of government is wide open to deal-making and corruption of all kinds.
Where else is a there a troika of politicians who hold both executive and legislative powers? Imagine if our founders had incorporated these dual powers into the executive branch of our federal government? Guaranteed…we would long have been left with a dictatorship, or failing that, the most currupt form of government on the planet.
Those who defend this form of despotism would have us believe that the presence of a minority commissioner provides a restraint on the abusive use of power by the majority commissioners. That is a joke since it is most common for a minority commissioner to go along with this majority of two since otherwise they will be denied any opportunity to pursue their own goals, however worthy these are.
The best way to clean up county government is to totally abolish this un-American form of government.
Matt Thomas
We were very happy to see
We were very happy to see the end of the County Commissioners in Allegheny County….for all the reasons you mention and more.
Pilt
Same day donations
I think the point here that PD might be missing is that $9,000 in contributions were made on the SAME DAY as the contract approval.
It is illegal in Pennsylvania to make or accept contributions that seek to influence a vote or contract – it is difficult to argue that these donations were made for any other reason.
Yes, I saw that
I agree it looks suspicious, but I am against making a judgement without knowing as many facts as I can. Let me repeat, I am FOR ethical government. I am NOT against investigating waste, fraud and abuse. I am just against passing judgement for the moment.
pd
so maybe
you are saying that these contributions could warrant an investigation? that is the only way you would be able to get more information – b/c you know the GOP won’t be volunteering any facts.
Deconstructing Rome
I’m not sure why some folks finding the concept of “pay-to-play” shocking. It’s been part of politics (a sad, disgusting part, but a part nonetheless) since cavemen were holding votes in their…well, caves. Seriously, is anyone really THAT surprised over the prospect of local government leaders “awarding” contracts to their friends? If this weren’t the case, the Democratic machine in the city of Pittsburgh would literally stop churning (you would actually hear the wretched churn come to a halt). From the “local-yokel” mentality of municipal government to the “glitz and glamour” at the federal level, friends and donors are given priority when contracts are decided. Should this be the case? Of course not, primarily because too often it’s the taxpayer who is required to finance this “time-honored” tradition of government. When competition is excluded from the contractual process, everybody involved wins except…you guessed it, the guy known as Average Joe. How do us “good government” types go about implementing change? We know the Rome wasn’t built in a day. She wasn’t torn down in 24 either. It will take patience and persistence, but slowly but surely we can arrive at a point where taxpayers can have some degree of confidence that they are getting the best deal possible. We should demand a healthy dose of contractual competition held under a bright ray of sunshine. Push for laws REQUIRING government at all levels to actively seek multiple bids for contracts of all types. Whether or not the government still signs on with their friends is immaterial – they’ll be forced to defend their decision to their constituencies, which will probably prove more difficult if the agreement wasn’t the most efficient at the lowest cost. Governments should hold public hearings, and/or post the bidding process online (much like the THOMAS system in Congress), where citizens can access the contract, bids, and regular updates on where the process is. Would this process be a bit more time-consuming and cumbersome than the current back-channel, “smoke-filled room” approach? Sure. Then again, it can be argued that a good night’s sleep is priceless.
Post new comment