JANUARY
8, 2006 --
The
Boston Globe reported in its "City and Region" section,
January 4, that the fourth inaugural celebration for Boston
Mayor Thomas M. Menino got $500,000 from 65 donors, most of
whom do business in Boston.
The article quoted an attorney for some of the donors as saying that people
doing business in Boston are solicited because they " want to make sure
the city remains a great city.'"
The same edition of the Globe, in its lead editorial, "Abramoff and Beyond" pointed
out that Jack Abramoff had pleaded guilty to tax evasion, conspiracy and mail
fraud, but not "outright bribery" that the editorial said "is
difficult to prove."
The editorial also commented: "...the culture in Washington is so fouled
with special-interest money that even legal contributions often undermine public
confidence, and [the Abramoff] case appears far worse."
LPR is confused. If Mr. Abramoff did not try to bribe any lawmakers, why are
his contributions now being returned, or, as The New York Times reported, January
6, given to charities? And if there is nothing wrong with political contributions,
why does the Globe declare that the Washington culture is "fouled with
special-interest money?"
Could it just be that lawmakers don't want to hold funds received directly
or indirectly someone who has pleaded guilty to federal felonies?
LPR wonders what the Globe has to say about the culture in Boston that apparently
requires soliciting $500,000, mainly from Boston businesses, to keep Boston "great" (so
that other members of the Red Sox won't take their free agency to other cities?)
This writer has an idea what happens to people who are not part of the political "culture"--officialdom
turns on them.
There had been speculation that Bill de Blasio might be the next speaker of
New York's City Council. Apparently county leaders in Queens and the Bronx
gave their support to Christine C. Quinn, who is now referred to as "the
first woman and first openly gay politician to be Council speaker." (The
term "openly gay" could, of course prompt speculation about previous
speakers.)
When it seemed that Councilman de Blasio might be the next speaker, LPR was
prepared to ask him to speak out about the Dayton Seaside property tax matter,
in which New York City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), made it seem that the three Dayton Seaside apartment buildings in the
Rockaway section of Queens where tens of millions of dollars in property tax
arrears.
|
|
In fact, New
York City refused to settle the property taxes per redevelopment
agreement, and, instead, alleged back tax claims and interest
penalties.
HUD was involved because it was mortgagee on two of the buildings and turned
over to New York City tax escrow money for years prior to 1984, monies that
were applied post-1984 and helped the city claim huge tax arrears.
This writer had brief correspondence with Mr. de Blasio when he was a HUD official.
Mr. de Blasio offered no information on the Dayton Seaside tax matter that
forced the buildings into bankruptcy and obtained the new owners desired by
New York City.
(After leaving HUD, Mr. de Blasio served as campaign manager on Hillary Clinton's
successful 2000 race for U.S. senator from New York. He then got elected to
the New York City Council, from Brooklyn.)
The outcry over the Jack Abramoff case, seen as an example of government by
insiders could indicate that the spirit of Federalist 57 -- calling for officials
to serve the "common good" and be close to the
people -- still lives.
This writer has reason to understand that government by insiders means that
outsiders are left in the cold. It is not helpful when the media works with
insiders -- as, this writer believes, occurred with the Dayton Seaside story.
LPR did note that The Washington Post, in its December 29 article on Abramoff,
reported that Abramoff had paid
people to write op-ed columns saying good things about this clients, including
a Copley News Service writer who admitted to receiving money, for some two
dozen stories written over the past ten years, or so.
The best evidence that the spirit of America remains strong, would, LPR believes,
would be public reference and endorsement of the populist principles in Federalist
57.
All the laws and regulations drafted as a result of Abramoff-not-Bribery-gate,
would not be as effective as electing lawmakers who endorsed and lived by the "common
good" counsel Madison placed in Federalist 57.
If lawmakers honored the counsel of Federalist 57 and made no distinction between
contributors and non-contributors, the political culture might get
cleaned up without need of new laws and rules -- at risk, of course, that significant
campaign contributions will not be so forthcoming.
|
|
