Corruption or business as usual?

Two corruption cases have been the talk at the State House in recent weeks, but some veterans of Massachusetts politics think it’s much ado about nothing.

At this writing, former State Treasurer Tim Cahill is waiting to hear if a Suffolk County jury will find him guilty of conspiracy to provide unwarranted privileges and commit procurement fraud. Cahill and a former aide are accused of using Massachusetts State Lottery ads to boost Cahill’s campaign for governor in 2010.

Meanwhile, federal prosecutors are investigating the state probation department and have already indicted three probation officials, including former Commissioner John O’Brien. The feds charge that probation officials traded jobs for favorable legislative appropriations and rumors abound that prominent current and former legislators may also be indicted.

Corruption was a way of life

Corruption charges are nothing new in Massachusetts.

Sal DiMasi, the last speaker of the State House of Representatives, was the third house speaker in a row to be convicted of corruption, following Charles Flaherty and Thomas Finneran’s convictions. Other legislators and officials at all levels are routinely fined by the state Ethics Commission.

In fact, in the wake of the so-called MBM state building scandal in the 1970s, a special commission concluded that corruption “was a way of life in Massachusetts.”

The question, however, is do the Cahill and probation department matters rise to the level of those former scandals?

Former governor and federal prosecutor William Weld doesn’t think so and told a Boston Herald editorial board last week he wouldn’t have filed charges in these cases and he considers them “normal politics.” He’s not alone in this assertion, as other Beacon Hill officials and commentators have also questioned these investigations.

Are these two cases actually corruption or simply business as usual?

The Cahill case may set a new standard. All politicians try to use their accomplishments in political office to further their political careers.

Cahill did not even appear in the lottery ads and he claims that he didn’t give a thought to his political future when he approved them. He claims he was just trying to fend off Republican ads attacking the way he ran the lottery, and he was defending the integrity of the lottery, not promoting his candidacy.

Patronage a long tradition

The probation department affair is as old as politics itself. Anyone who has seen the movie Lincoln saw how patronage worked in the 1860s.

If a certain legislator voted in favor of the president’s proposed 13th Amendment to the Constitution, that legislator would get to recommend a new postmaster or other federal patronage position in his district. A straight tit for tat. Patronage now takes place more quietly and new ethics laws have slowed down, but not stopped, the practice.

The Cahill matter seems to be just skating on the edge of corruption and the fact the jury is still deliberating after four days suggests the jurors are far from convinced.

Had Cahill appeared in the lottery ads himself and, perhaps, mentioned he was also a candidate for governor, then it would definitely have been illegal. Short of that or evidence of a clear conspiracy, Cahill may be found not guilty.

The probation patronage appointments are a different matter. If prosecutors discover direct evidence of jobs traded for appropriations, then it’s going to be bad news for any probation officials and legislators involved. The amended conflict of interest law passed last year makes it even more explicit than the previous law that such dealing is illegal.

But the question remains: where do you draw the line? Job applicants commonly contribute to the campaigns of elected officials, and if that applicant gets the job, should the ethics commission launch an investigation to see if the official used his or her influence to help the contributor get the position?

The voters weighed in on these matters a few years ago and passed an initiative petition setting up a system of public financing of state elections that would have gone a long way toward eliminating this kind of tit for tat.

But a cynical State Legislature refused to fund and then repealed the new law and campaigns went back to the good old days of private financing by citizens, a sure avenue for opportunists seeking to promote themselves.

Tim Cahill may be wondering how and why he ended up in court while doing something most elected officials normally do. And some probation department employees and legislators may feel the same way.

With one trial nearing an end and another yet to begin, it looks like the courts, one way or another, will have the final word.

Posted by Bruce Garlow on December 13, 2012. Filed under Berkshire Beacon Hill Spotlight,Columns,Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry