Welcome to the Supreme Court, where corruption has no meaning; The Washington Post, June 22, 2023

 Paul Waldman , The Washington. Post; Welcome to the Supreme Court, where corruption has no meaning

"There are two seminal rulings that show how the court has altered the relationship between public officials and the ultrawealthy who want things from them: The first is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which — along with a series of subsequent casesthat opened the floodgates to ever-increasing political spending — insisted that we shouldn’t worry about the corrupting influence of all that money.

The second was McDonnell v. United States (2016), in which the court overturned the conviction of former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell, who had accepted $175,000 in gifts and loans — including a $20,000 shopping spree for his wife, the use of a Ferrari and a Rolex watch — from a donor who was seeking the state’s help in promoting his business. The court ruled that since McDonnell only partially came through for the donor — he set up a series of meetings with the donor and other officials — he hadn’t taken “official acts” in exchange for the money and gifts, and therefore he was innocent. More cases dismissing corruption accusations followed.

“This court majority has put in place a radically diminished notion of what corruption is,” said Michael Waldman, head of the Brennan Center for Justice and author of a new book on the Supreme Court. “There’s an ideology that rich people throwing their money around in a way that benefits these officials is not corrupting unless you have a receipt showing ‘I admit to receiving a bribe.’”

The result is a world in which the ultrawealthy face few constraints in developing problematic relationships, and those they want to influence, whether judges or politicians, can enjoy the fruits of their generosity unfettered by pesky rules and regulations."

Quid Pro Crow; Slate, April 14, 2023

DAHLIA LITHWICK AND MARK JOSEPH STERN, Slate ; Quid Pro Crow

"What mattered last week and what still matters this week is whether the Crow/Thomas dealings can be seen as classic quid pro quo (or perhaps quid pro Crow) corruption."

Opinion: Putin is trying to wipe out the work of his strongest opponent. He won’t succeed.; The Washington Post, February 2, 2022

Editorial Board, The Washington Post; Opinion: Putin is trying to wipe out the work of his strongest opponent. He won’t succeed.

"Dictatorship has a body language, a way of conveying grievance, grudge and vulnerability. Mr. Putin has once again revealed his acute anxiety about Mr. Navalny and all that he stands for. On Tuesday, the Russian censor, Roskomnadzor, instructed five Russian news media outlets — television, radio and online — to remove articles and broadcasts based on Mr. Navalny’s investigations of Mr. Putin and his inner circle within 24 hours — just in time for the anniversary of his sentencing. The radio station Echo of Moscow was ordered to delete 34 items; television channel TV Rain six items; the news websites Znak, 13 items, Meduza, 17 items and Svobodnye Novosti, nine. Some of them said they would comply.

What’s so offensive? Svobodnye Novosti was ordered to remove material about “Putin’s Palace,” the sprawling Black Sea pleasure palace that Mr. Navalny exposed as having been secretly constructed for Mr. Putin. The other eight items, published between 2018 and 2021, all stemmed from Mr. Navalny’s anti-corruption probes, including revelations about how Mr. Putin’s coterie accumulated expensive real estate, fancy cars and lavish clothing. The television channel said it was ordered to remove reports about an investigation of secret residences held by Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin among other items."

Wanna be in government? Pass an ethics course; Dominican Today, April 29, 2021

Dominican Today; Wanna be in government? Pass an ethics course

"President Luis Abinader announced Thursday that, from now on, for a citizen to be in government or to remain on it, it will be a requirement to have completed the Basic Course on Ethics for Public Servants.

In a joint resolution between the Public Administration Ministry (MAP) and the General Directorate of Government Ethics and Integrity (Digeig) they indicate that the training will be essential to access, remain and develop in public positions."

Harvard’s Epstein corruption deserves a full airing — even amid a pandemic; The Washington Post, May 4, 2020

Charles Lane, The Washington Post; Harvard’s Epstein corruption deserves a full airing — even amid a pandemic

[Kip Currier: Fortuitous to see this story -- and the call for this "cautionary" real world case study to be investigated  -- as I’ve included this as a case study in the syllabus for my new graduate course, The Information Professional in the Community, launching next week.

In one of the course’s weekly units, we'll be exploring Harvard's deeply concerning ties to the late disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and, in columnist Charles Lane's parlance, "the cutting of ethical corners", within the broader context of critically examining Fiscal Considerations, Legal/Ethical/Policy Issues, and Risk Management in Collaborations and Partnerships.] 

"Such grotesque money-grubbing at the pinnacle of U.S. academia — a school, to be sure, that has positioned itself an ethical leader, especially in the movement against sexual assault and gender bias on campus — deserves a full airing, even amid the novel coronavirus pandemic...

It joins a lengthening list of cautionary tales of fundraising excess, such as the admissions-for-cash episode involving athletic teams at Yale, Stanford, the University of California at Los Angeles, the University of Southern California and Georgetown, among others...

The need for cash is probably at or near an all-time high, and so is the risk, reputational and otherwise, of cutting ethical corners to raise it.

Professors and administrators can ill afford the moral arrogance that characterized the dealings of some at Harvard with Epstein, or their sloppiness, or their cluelessness...

Not everyone at Harvard — much less everyone in higher ed — is to blame for this sorry episode. Every college and university can learn from it."

Andrew Gillum’s Florida Ethics Troubles Just Got Worse; Slate, January 25, 2019

Mark Joseph Stern, Slate; Andrew Gillum’s Florida Ethics Troubles Just Got Worse

"However Gillum chooses to proceed, it’s clear that Friday’s findings undermine his account and, by extension, his credibility. Throughout the campaign, he insisted that he paid his share of the lavish excursions and never accepted gifts from lobbyists. That narrative is now almost impossible to believe. True, Gillum never performed favors for lobbyists in exchange for their largesse, which would be a federal offense. But even without a quid pro quo, his cozy relationship with lobbyists did not seem to comport with Florida law.

Should Gillum run for office down the road, this blunder will likely be used as a cudgel, risking his ability to win a primary, let alone a general election. Perhaps it is too soon to write off his political career. But if he ever again throws his hat in the ring, his opponents will be ready to pounce with a sordid—and substantiated—tale of corruption."

Justices Would Get Ethics Code Under New Democrat Bill; The National Law Journal, Janaury 7, 2019

Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle, The National Law Journal; 

Justices Would Get Ethics Code Under New Democrat Bill

The bill is the latest of repeated efforts by Congress to impose an ethics code on the Supreme Court, which is exempt from the code first promulgated in 1973 by the Judicial Conference.

 

"The first bill introduced by the Democratic-led House of Representatives last week contains a provision that would include U.S. Supreme Court justices for the first time in a newly created code of conduct.

If passed, the provision could raise separation-of-powers issues and would likely irritate the high court, which covets its independence and its special status under the Constitution. The provision could also revive the controversy over ethics complaints against Justice Brett Kavanaugh that were dismissed last month because he is now on the Supreme Court, outside the purview of existing judicial ethics rules.

H.R. 1, dubbed the “For the People Act,” is a wide-ranging bill that covers issues of transparency, corruption, ethics and campaign finance reform."

The framers worried about corruption. Their words may now haunt the president.; The Washington Post, July 27, 2018

Editorial Board, The Washington Post; The framers worried about corruption. Their words may now haunt the president.

"The government is certain to appeal, and the matter will probably be settled in a higher court. Nonetheless, the judge’s ruling opens the way for fact-finding to proceed in the case against Mr. Trump, meaning the plaintiffs may now seek financial records of his hotel and business — as well as his tax returns, which the president has refused to divulge.

In cutting through the definitional underbrush, it’s fair to think of the emoluments clauses as the means by which the framers intended to impede corruption and ensure officials would be beholden to the public interest, not private interests. Mr. Trump has seemed heedless of such distinctions. This lawsuit could change that."

Ethics Watchdog Releases One-Word Statement On Pruitt Resignation; HuffPost, July 5, 2018

Ryan Grenoble, HuffPost; Ethics Watchdog Releases One-Word Statement On Pruitt Resignation

"What is there to say when you run an ethics watchdog and a man The Washington Post labeled “easily the most corrupt senior official in the federal government” has just resigned?

Not much. At least nothing that doesn’t involve four-letter words.

Reacting to news that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt resigned Thursday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released a one-word statement, attributed to Executive Director Noah Bookbinder: “Good.”"

The Facebook Controversy: Privacy Is Not the Issue; Scientific American, April 18, 2018

Peter Bruce, Scientific American; The Facebook Controversy: Privacy Is Not the Issue
The real danger is that the information and social platforms on the internet are being corrupted in the service of con men, political demagogues and thieves

"The Future

It is hard to see how government regulation will play a useful role. In today’s digital age, regulation is like placing rocks in a streambed. The water will simply flow around them, even big ones.

It’s possible that the social media titans will use tools at their disposal like those discussed here to drastically reduce the impact of fake accounts and manipulative behavior. Currently, we have the attention of Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, because of the peculiar Cambridge Analytica circumstances, where the storyline runs something like “Breitbart and Trump funder scrapes massive amounts of personal data from Facebook, uses it to manipulate opinion.” Meanwhile, Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, has made some promises to improve identity verification but has otherwise escaped the most recent limelight.

The ultimate solution may lie in a smarter public. Can people be taught to approach what they see on the internet with greater skepticism? P.T. Barnum would say no, but there is one powerful example of public education that had a good and profound end: smoking. The tremendous decline in smoking around the world is due largely to public education and an attendant change in behavior, not to regulation and not to greater public responsibility on the part of tobacco companies."

Never have we seen such chaos and corruption; Washington Post, March 1, 2018

Eugene Robinson, Washington Post; Never have we seen such chaos and corruption

"Any other president who displayed such cavalier disregard for previous policy positions and total ignorance of basic facts would have provoked an uproar. Trump barely gets a shrug. Nobody expects him to be consistent. Nobody expects him to know anything about anything. He is defining the presidency down in a way that we must not tolerate.

I spent years as a foreign correspondent in Latin America. To say we are being governed like a banana republic is an insult to banana republics. It’s that bad, and no one should pretend otherwise."

The Trump administration is in an unethical league of its own; Washington Post, March 1, 2018

Max Boot, Washington Post; The Trump administration is in an unethical league of its own

"One of the great non-mysteries of the Trump administration is why Cabinet members think they can behave like aristocrats at the court of the Sun King. The Department of Housing and Urban Development spent $31,000 for a dining set for Secretary Ben Carson’s office while programs for the poor were being slashed. The Environmental Protection Agency has been paying for Administrator Scott Pruitt to fly first class and be protected by a squadron of bodyguards so he doesn’t have to mix with the great unwashed in economy class. The Department of Veterans Affairs spent $122,334 for Secretary David Shulkin and his wife to take what looks like a pleasure trip to Europe last summer; Shulkin’s chief of staff is accused of doctoring emails and lying about what happened. The Department of Health and Human Services paid more than $400,000 for then-Secretary Tom Price to charter private aircraft — a scandal that forced his resignation. 

Why would Cabinet members act any differently when they are serving in the least ethical administration in our history? The “our” is important, because there have been more crooked regimes — but only in banana republics. The corruption and malfeasance of the Trump administration is unprecedented in U.S. history. The only points of comparison are the Gilded Age scandals of the Grant administration, Teapot Dome under the Harding administration, and Watergate and the bribe-taking of Vice President Spiro Agnew during the Nixon administration. But this administration is already in an unethical league of its own. The misconduct revealed during just one day this week — Wednesday — was worse than what presidents normally experience during an entire term...

Given the ethical direction set by this president, it’s a wonder that his Cabinet officers aren’t stealing spoons from their official dining rooms. Come to think of it, maybe someone should look into that."

On ethics, Trump is leading America in the wrong direction; CNN, July 26, 2017

Jeffrey D. Sachs, CNN; On ethics, Trump is leading America in the wrong direction
"In a recent speech in Poland, President Donald Trump asked whether the West "has the will to survive." It's a good question, but aimed in the wrong direction. While Trump spoke about foreign aggression, the real threat to the West is the collapse of ethical norms, led by Trump and others like him. America is engulfed in a tsunami of unethical activity, and there is no assurance it has the will to save itself."

"The Rules Are Different Here"; Bizarro, May 2, 2017

Dan Piraro, Bizarro; "The Rules Are Different Here"

Jason Chaffetz Doesn’t Care About Ethics; Slate, 1/13/17

Dahlia Lithwick, Slate; Jason Chaffetz Doesn’t Care About Ethics

"In a letter to [Jason] Chaffetz, [Elijah] Cummings called for a public hearing with Shaub as the main witness, as opposed to the closed-door meeting Chaffetz is seeking.

But of course, there is no shaming Chaffetz, the guy who announced that he could never again look his daughter in the eye if he endorsed Trump in October, subsequently promised to vote for Trump, and now feels the need to carry Trump’s top secret manila folders around...

Whether it meant attempting to dismantle the congressional watchdog or gunning for the independent ethics chief, it’s now clear that working in a nonpartisan fashion to try to uphold ethical norms is now prohibited in Republican-controlled Washington. You can be sure that so long as it’s ethically bankrupt individuals like Chaffetz in charge of enforcing these norms and laws, then our system will be as rife with corruption as our incoming president wants it to be."

Ethics in the swamp: the rot of corruption; Huffington Post, 12/9/16

Katherine Marshall, Huffington Post; Ethics in the swamp: the rot of corruption:

"Corruption is a live topic today. Since 2005, international anti-corruption day has been “celebrated” on December 9, in hopes that a visible day marking the topic can raise awareness about corruption and bolster a sense that something can be done to combat and prevent it. The large biannual International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC17) in Panama City ended on December 4, where some 1300 very diverse participants addressed a multitude of issues, from green eyeshade detail, lawyerly discourse, to lofty principles such as trust. The meeting concluded with a commitment that: “Together we will strengthen our web of anti-corruption activists. Together, the public sector, business and civil society will hold the corrupt to account. It is Time for Justice, Equity, Security, and Trust.” The activists, many part of Transparency International, come from all over the world, widely different in ideology and approach, but they share a gutsy determination to hold leaders to account.

More tellingly, corruption is a leading topic in political discourse, from Washington to Manila to Kabul to Nairobi to Abuja. The belief that corruption is pervasive drives much of the anger that we see reflected in extremist movements, secular and religious. It fuels the populist surge and the sense of rot that discredits governments and politicians in widely different countries and cultures. America’s political campaign featured narratives about a Washington swamp with bloated, rotten bureaucracies wasting or diverting public resources. The narratives can be misleading, undermining courageous political leaders and public servants, but many see little beyond stories about corrupt practices...

The next International Anti-Corruption Conference will be in Denmark in 2018. It’s time to mix the oil and water. Fighting corruption is about more than exhortation: declaiming against those who steal and fail to honor their public responsibilities. Anti-corruption strategies and practices can work. But only when the passion of activists and moral leaders comes together with different parts of society, religious institutions included, to translate anger and a desire for good governance into reality. The fight against corruption, for decent governance and strong public service depends on public morality and a common commitment to ethical standards and priorities. Draining the swamp depends on linking the best of religious and civic teachings to the realities of political leadership and governance. That’s what it will take to achieve “Justice, Equity, Security, and Trust”."

How the Mafia Murdered the Townspeople of Amatrice; Daily Beast, 8/31/16

Barbie Latza Nadeau, Daily Beast; How the Mafia Murdered the Townspeople of Amatrice:

"What struck most people first was why the Romolo Capranica primary school in Amatrice had been destroyed. After all, the city paid more than €700,000 in 2013 to renovate the structure, including high-tech anti-seismic features that are supposed to be in place in any public building. But when investigators looked up the building code records, the seals and stamps that proved compliance were apparently faked and fudged. In essence, the documents meant to ensure anti-seismic protection measures were installed in a primary school in an earthquake zone had been faked. The school fell because someone had cheated the system.

And now, Italy’s chief anti-Mafia prosecutor, Franco Roberti, is warning that, if left to its own devices, the mob will strike again and infiltrate the eventual rebuilding contracts in the area."

How Think Tanks Amplify Corporate America’s Influence; New York Times, 8/7/16

Eric Lipton and Brooke Williams, New York Times; How Think Tanks Amplify Corporate America’s Influence:

"The likely conclusions of some think tank reports, documents show, are discussed with donors — or even potential ones — before the research is complete. Drafts of the studies have been shared with donors whose opinions have then helped shape final reports. Donors have outlined how the resulting scholarship will be used as part of broader lobbying efforts. The think tanks also help donors promote their corporate brands, as Brookings does with JPMorgan Chase, whose $15.5 million contribution is the largest by a private corporation in the institution’s history.

Despite these benefits, corporations can write off the donations as charitable contributions. Some tax experts say these arrangements may amount to improper subsidies by taxpayers if think tanks are providing specific services.

“People think of think tanks as do-gooders, uncompromised and not bought like others in the political class,” said Bill Goodfellow, the executive director of the Center for International Policy, a Washington-based think tank. “But it’s absurd to suggest that donors don’t have influence. The danger is we in the think tank world are being corrupted in the same way as the political world. And all of us should be worried about it.”

A group of Democratic state attorneys general is investigating whether Exxon Mobil worked with certain think tanks in past decades to cover up its understanding of fossil fuels’ impact on climate change, in part by financing reports questioning the science, a suggestion the company rejects.

Executives at Brookings, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and other think tanks say they have systems in place to ensure that their reports are based on scholars’ independent conclusions."