The Christian Science Monitor takes note of U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s pronouncement on arresting Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich:
“We’re not going to end corruption in Illinois by arrests and indictments alone,” said prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald after laying out charges Tuesday against Gov. Rod Blagojevich. He’s right – and not only for one state. Americans can’t leave it to law officers to smoke out corruption in high places. Democracy needs vigilance by everyone to keep government free of taint from money politics.
Illinois is hardly alone in its high level of graft, even though it has had four governors in trouble with the law in the past 35 years and Chicago still carries a reputation for sleazy politics.
In the past decade, former governors of Alabama, Connecticut, and Louisiana have been found guilty of money crimes. A few Massachusetts politicians now face corruption charges.
Alaska’s Sen. Ted Stevens was found guilty of lying about gifts from a political supporter. New York Rep. Charles Rangel, head of the House tax panel, is being probed on allegations of seeking money for political favors and of dodging taxes on his homes. At least a dozen recent representatives in the House have been nailed for corruption.
Just as vultures gather wherever there’s dead meat to be had, greedy people will gather where there’s money sitting around that nobody’s looking at. The more money, the greater the temptation.
The situation is aggravated when you add the sense of proprietorship and entitlement that comes when you’ve gotten your office through family connections, as was the case with Rod Blagojevich, the son-in-law of a powerful Chicago alderman. No one in his right mind believes he was the best qualified candidate for the job when he was elected governor in 2002, as David Broder observed yesterday. It was the family connections, the relationships, the support of the organization.
Our resources are large but finite; we can’t afford to squander them on corruption. Here in Chicago we take a certain level of corruption for granted: it’s grease. It’s what keeps the gears of the governmental bureaucracy, reluctant to move, from seizing up entirely.
The tools that we have for fighting it are limited. As Patrick Fitzgerald noted, arrests and indictments aren’t enough.
We can reduce the amount of money that’s left sitting around by reducing the demands we put on government. I see little appetite for that, particularly in difficult economic times.
We can put additional layers of oversight in place. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guards?
In the final analysis I think we’re the guards. We’ve got to bring the corruption, the grease, out into the sunlight. We’ve got to acknowledge it and make it public. Even if the trains run on time. Even if it’s our guy and the other guy’s side will win. Even if we have something lose by it. Even if it’s our niece or our brother-in-law or our daughter or our father.
And for goodness sake let’s stop voting for corruption. Being the regular party candidate shouldn’t be enough. Being a relative of an officeholder shouldn’t be enough.
I have to disagree w/ you and Broder on the reason Blagojevich got elected in the first place. In 2002, Blagojevich was the only person in the Democratic primary to campaign in the Downstate. The rest of them stayed in vote rich Chicago. Burris focused on getting out the black vote; Vallas doesn’t like to travel. Blagojevich finished third in Chicago, getting little help from his father-in-law, but doing extremely well in areas where people did not know who is father-in-law was.
To give the guy his due, he was a good campaigner — charismatic, energetic and able to wrap himself in the gauzy language of reform. All he needed was 36% of the votes in the Democratic Primary during a crowded year in which the Republicans were immersed in scandal and infighting. I think that 2002 points to a host of familiar problems: single party dominance; crowded election fields; the importance of campaigning skills; the limitations of campaigns focused on one’s base; the upsides of a thin resume; and how campaigns evaluate candidates in general.
I can’t explain 2006 when everyone should have known.
I guess my point is that he put his foot on the first rung as Dick Mell’s son-in-law. That got him political office, some name recognition, and tons of money as the regular party candidate.
To be frank, I take the John Adams view that skills and interest tend to run in the family. I’m less troubled by someone getting help with their start in politics by family and subsequently being judged on their own merits. Caroline Kennedy as U.S. Senator would bother me a lot more (where is the first rung?), as do the direct inheritance types (Lipinski and Emil Jones III).
That’s not the way things work these days, PD. Nobody’s judged on their merits but upon what brand they represent. When brand loyalty is everything who gets a start is important. Rod Blagojevich and Todd Stroger (just to name two) are manifest idiots. They couldn’t have gotten elected to a school board based on their own merits and if they had they’d never have been re-elected.
Wait a minute, I just remembered, you’re in Emanuel’s District, right? That would mean your next Congressonal Rep is going to be Dick Mell’s daugher?
That’s right. I think it may depend on whether Marge Laurino wants to move up the ladder. I think she’d be a fool to do it but who knows?