When the first Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago (the father of the city's current mayor) was charged with nepotism for switching the city's insurance business from a long time provider to his son's insurance agency, his response was simple. "Isn't that what father's are supposed to do, help their children get a start in life?"
The answer, of course, is that they are, but that does not mean they are allowed fo help them with public money. But that doesn't mean there was a scandal, or that the mayor did anything wrong. Was there a city ordinance or a state law which required competitive bidding for the contract? If that was disregarded, there is a scandal. Was the insurance sold by the Mayor's son wildly more expensive than the competitor's, there is a scandal. Otherwise, the Mayor was correct. There was no reason legally or politicaly to not use his son's agency, and there were personal reasons for using it. Without a real scandal, the "appearance of impropriety" is pretty much a smear tactic.
This year, the same sort of questions of political figures doing things which directly or indirectly benefit relatives have come up about Ron Paul, a Republican candidate for President, and Jim Clyburn, a Representative from South Carolina and the former chariman of the Congressional Black Caucus and current majority whip.
Last month, the Washington Post ran a story by Matthew Mosk([link edited for length] )about Ron Paul's relatives who were doing paid work for the campaign They had the information from forms filed by the campaign, and detailed which relatives were working for the camapaign and how much each was paid. After a long discussion of when payment to relatives from campaign funds might be illegal (if the relatives were not qualified for the job or were not actually working) the Post admitted that there was no evident that the campaign had violated the law.
It is perfectly legal to employ people for a campaign. That is why campaign funds are raised and the Paul campaign was funded by individual donations and not government funds. So there is no story here, just information supplied which served as the justification for a misleading headline. There is little evidence that the reporters actually tried to find out what the campaign's employees were doing. The only scandal here is the shoddy journalism of the Washington Post. In the early 1930s, the columnist Drew Pearson got a tip that John Nance Garner, then Speaker of the House, had put his wife on the payroll as a secretary. Sensing a scandal, Pearson went to the Speaker's office to confront him--and found Mrs. Garner doing a good and efficient job as a secretary. He wrote a column on what he had found, with praise for both the Garners. Pearson, who was not known for his high ethical standards at least knew what a reporter is supposed to do with a tip, which the Washington Post reporters apparently do not.
This week it is the turn of Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina. There may be more substance to the charges against Mr. Clyburn than the other two, but not for nepotism. The Myrtle Beach Sun News ran an article by David Wren ([link edited for length]) stating, and giving some evidence, that at least a few of Representative Clyburn's relatives benefited at least tangentially for Clyburn earmarks. Clyburn's response was, "I have a bushel of family members. I earmark stuff for the State of South Carolina and my daughter works for the state. I earmark stuff for Sumter and several of the nieces and nephews work for Sumter."
It is certainly true that the Representative earmarks a lot of stuff. He ranks first in the number of earmarks by the South Carolina delegation and fifty-first among all congressmen. With that kind of record in earmarking and with a large extended family, the surprise would be if he had no earmarks from which his relatives might receive some benefit. But the article singles out three examples which certainly raise questions. Two of these cases revolved around a nephew who is an architect. One is a grant to The African American Museum in Charleston, South Carolina, and the other was to a non-profit organization in Georgetown, South Carolina which was intended to find jobs for the poor. Both of these earmarks for building projects in which the Congressman's nephew was the designer. Even more problematic is a grant to the airport in Augusta. Georgia, to build an extention. The lobbyist for the airport was William Clyburn, Jr, a cousin of Repesentative Clyburn. Mr. Clyburn originally said that he had suggested the earmark to Representative Clyburn, but later said that he had not.
The Augusta airport is near the Geogia-South Carolina border and probably it is used by South Carolinians. But the picture of a Congressman using earmarks to build projects in a state other than the one he represents, and to do so at the urging of a lobbyist, related or not, is somewhat distasteful.
But the real scandal here is not that some relatives of Representative Clyburn may have been able to keep thei jobs, thanks to his earmarkd, but the practice of earmarkes at all. This is an election, and the Democrats, including Representative Clyburn, are campaigning on a need to raise taxes because the government is running out of money to provide essential government purposes. As nice as it may be, a museum in Charleston is not an essential government service, nor are most of the other earmarks which Representative Clyburn and other members of Congress are so fond of. The defense of the practice is that it allows the Congressmen to provide services to their state for projects which do not qualify for existing federal programs. The answer to that, of course, if the project only benefits the state of South Carolina, the State of South Carolina should pay for it. If the State of South Carolina is not interested, private funds should pay for it. It is becoming a little annoying to be told that the government is having financial problems when our Representatives seem to think there in plenty of money in Washingont, and a good part of it should be spent on their individual pet projects.
©2008 rtbohan, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of rtbohan only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. rtbohan is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by rtbohan of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By rtbohan |
Reader Comments: