The Impact of the Bob McDonnell Conviction on Public Corruption: The Legality of Selling Ambassadorships
A federal jury convicted former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell on eleven public corruption charges, and his wife, Maureen, on nine, this week, concluding that the cash and gifts they received from a former nutritional supplement mogul constituted bribery. The pair face possible decades-long prison sentences. The convictions have sparked a debate in Virginia over that state's lax ethics rules relating to elective officials' behavior. Tried-and-true practices of business people and politicians scratching each others' backs for political and financial favors are being questioned.
The impact of the conviction is also making itself felt nationally. This was discussed on Hardball With Chris Matthews on September 4, with pundit Howard Fineman observing:
"The definition that the judge accepted in this case of what is an official act that somebody receiving money or favors…is so broad that, if I were a politician anywhere in America, I would be worried that a federal grand jury could go after me even if I did nothing official, nothing legal, no administrative change… because that’s what happened to Bob McDonnell."
Matthews noted that four sitting governors (Walker-WI, Perry-TX, Christie-NJ,Cuomo-NY) are facing investigations into ethics violations.
The discussion turned to the selling of ambassadorships:
Matthews: "We live in a city where ambassadorships go out to the bundlers. The people that raise a lot of money in elections get the ambassadorships."
Fineman: "I think that giving ambassadorships to bundlers is sort of hiding in plain sight here. That is an obvious quid-pro-quo of an official action for a bunch of money to your campaign. Yet we wave it through."
As I've commented in my previous blog posts and published articles on this subject, "The United States is the only industrialized country to award diplomatic posts as political spoils, often to wealthy campaign contributors in an outmoded system that rivals the patronage practices of banana republics, dictatorships and two-bit monarchies." As Mr. Fineman pointed out, this sort of corruption is "hiding in plain sight."
The McDonnells were nailed for a fairly picayune sum: $165,000 in gifts, trips and loans. This pales in comparison to the $4.3 million in presidential campaign contributions bundled by the current U.S. ambassador to Belgium, a former Microsoft executive; or, the $2.1 million collected by a soap opera assistant producer, cooling her heels to be confirmed as our next ambassador to Hungary; or, the million bucks that a Long Island hotel magnate scraped together in return for being named as U.S. envoy to Norway (also cooling his heels). And the list goes on…and on…
Now, the key difference here is that, in the McDonnells' case, the swag went directly into their pockets. In the case of the amba$$adonors, the bundled cash is legally raised and goes legally into campaign coffers, not the president's pockets. This leaves a fine ethical line: should the technicality of cash flow absolve what is clearly the selling of public office?
President Obama is by no means the first chief executive to engage in this sordid practice of raising campaign money. But he clearly is the most egregious in putting on the auction block a record number of ambassadorships. And the U.S. Senate has long been complicit in the practice.
The McDonnell case indeed should give the president, and his successors, pause. He should put an end to this corruption that is hiding in plain sight. The time is ripe for a close legal examination of the practice of selling our diplomatic posts. Any takers?
See also -
Why Does America Send So Many Stupid, Unqualified Hacks Overseas?
Russian Diplomats Are Eating America's Lunch
Appeal to the U.S. Senate: Do Not Confirm These Amba$$adonors
- and previous