Table of Contents
Pay to Play politics returned to popular political discourse in 2018. Former White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney made the following statement to 1,300 bankers and lending industry officials at an American Bankers Association conference:
“If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”
You’ve probably heard the aphorism ‘money talks.’ In the case of Mulvaney’s statement, money affords you a position to talk. No money, no meeting. This can apply to lobbyists trying to prevent unfavorable legislation from becoming law, or often to cases where corporations want lucrative no-bid government contracts.
We at the front lines of the Zero Theft Movement have decided to tackle the issue of Pay to Play politics. We’ll dig deep, so you have the information to combat the crony capitalists who steal from the American public.
What is ‘Pay to Play ‘?
DEFINITION
Pay to Play refers to an unethical or illicit arrangement that involves ‘compensation’ (monetary or nonmonetary) to policymakers from those who wish to gain an unfair advantage or special privileges in politics, sports, business, etc.
Generally, Pay to Play comes in the form of money donations to a government official’s campaign. This exchange of money, according to law, cannot happen directly between the donor and the government official.
However, payment isn’t limited to money. If, for example, a presidential candidate on the campaign trial needs a hotel room or a rental car, then a ‘generous’ company just might pay for it. The donor wants to establish an ‘in’ so their lobbyists can get in the ear of the government official. Having bought access to a lawmaker, the lobbyist champions whatever will benefit their employer. That could be the passing or blocking of a bill.
Pay to play politics, at its worst, is vote-buying. Wherein a government official does whatever the company requires in exchange for compensation.
The Technology CEO Council, created by chief executives from Motorola, Dell, and Intel, published a report in October 2010 on government supply chain inefficiencies. They estimated the potential savings over ten years could exceed $700 billion if the supply chain is streamlined and white-collar crimes are eliminated. If the government does not put in an effort to streamline their contracting supply chains, are they ripping off the public?
Pay to Play & Government Contracting
Pay to Play politics holds a particularly prominent place in government contracting. If you don’t know, the U.S. government often provides services via private business contractors. Companies draft and submit proposals, competing with rivals to offer the best services at the best price. Theoretically, the government does this in order to reduce its spending while providing top-quality goods and services.
DID YOU KNOW?
The U.S. spends about 40% of its discretionary spending on government contracts. In 2019, that came out to be $586 billion—$380 billion of that went to the Department of Defense.
In an attempt to prevent pay-to-play practices, every state has some form of restriction against obtaining government contracts through bribery. Political watchdog Public Citizen nonetheless claims that businesses have found loopholes around these restrictions. Namely, that (1) few states restrict campaign contributions from businesses seeking government contracts, and (2) enforcement is lacking.
source: Political Law Briefing
Public Citizen has compiled a list of major alleged historical cases of Pay to Play in various states. A potential example we found particularly striking took place in Connecticut between 1999 and 2005. According to the watchdog’s document, “A number of elected officials and their associates in Connecticut resigned and pleaded guilty to corruption charges. This includes State Treasurer Paul Silvester, who invested over $500 million in state pension funds with financial institutions that ‘kicked back; money, via associates and friends, to his campaign committee; and State Senator Ernest Newton II, who received a small $5,000 bribe from a non-profit organization that sought a $100,000 state grant…Most notoriously, Governor John Rowland resigned and pleaded guilty in June 2004, ‘acknowledg[ing] that he conspired with other public officials and state contractors to award and/or facilitate the award of state contracts’ in return for free vacation stays, complimentary construction on his home, and private flights to Las Vegas.”
Alleged instances of Pay to Play Politics
Noteworthy cases of alleged Pay-to-Play politics crop up regularly in the news cycle. We will focus on two cases that occurred recently (as of July 2020).
Ohio House Speaker L. Householder & the Nuclear Power plant Bailout
Larry Householder (OH House Speaker) was arrested due to alleged connections with a $60 million bribery plot involving government officials and associates. A 2019 law bailed out two major OH nuclear power plants with funds dedicated to developing efficient energy and renewable energy resources.
An NPR news report states, “Regular payments to Householder’s secret company from Company A began in March 2017, a couple of months after he took a trip on Company A’s private jet […] But the payments got much bigger after the legislation was introduced: In May 2019, while the bill was pending before lawmakers, Company A allegedly wired $8 million to Generation Now [Householder’s money group].”
Thus, companies appear to use Pay to Play to get governmental officials to sell out. Lawmakers pass, block, write, or even let the company write legislation that will benefit the business.
The NPR report continues: “Last year’s nuclear bailout law tacked on a charge to residents’ power bills, sending $150 million a year to the nuclear power plants.”
Laws that siphon money from the everyday citizen have no place in our society. Not to mention, the relocation of those renewable energy development funds…
Join your fellow citizens in the fight against crony capitalists and corrupt officials! Don’t believe you’re a victim of the rigged layer of the economy? Read our crowdsourced Total Theft Report.
Trump University and former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi
Throughout the lifetime of Trump University, the POTUS’ real-estate investment classes came under fire. The New York Times reported, “Attorneys general in New York and California are pursuing separate class-action suits alleging that Trump University bilked consumers of tens of thousands of dollars they each paid for a worthless real-estate investment course.” Prior investigations into Trump University, led by former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and former Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, had both been dropped.
The article goes on to say, “A 2014 series […] how many attorney generals, including Ms. Bondi, accepted travel, luxury accommodations and other perks from corporations targeted by their offices.” The compensation mentioned in the quote does not include the many campaign donations many of them received. Regardless, due to a manifest absence of transparency, quantifying compensation always proves impossible.
The infamous Big Dig, one of the biggest public works projects in U.S. history, started in the early 90s and was supposed to finish in 1998, with a total price tag of $2.56 billion ($7.4 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2020). The project ended in 2007, costing $14.8 billion ($25 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2020). That’s more than five times the original estimate. Was this just one big waste of money?
Limiting Pay to Play Politics
Without even learning about the alleged cases of Pay to Play politics, the concept alone sounds reprehensible. If government officials vote based on the highest bidder, then we, the public, will suffer. Major corporations lawfully break free markets and hike up prices for everything, even essential goods like life-saving medicines. Government officials enjoy the extra funds to their campaigns or even their personal bank accounts.
Game theory and Pay to Play
Restricting Pay to Play politics, in theory, would level the playing field, allowing groups without the capital to spare to still inform government officials on their side. This should result in better-informed lawmakers who are not deciding their votes based on the interests of who is willing to pay the most.
Christopher Cotton’s 2012 study applying game theory to Pay to Play actually found that, while money helps a group get access to the government official, the returns prove unreliable. In fact, having no contribution limit brings greater returns to groups who do not have such capital to spare. The issue of access remains, though.
Cotton claims, “By committing to a contribution limit, the politician effectively constrains her rent-seeking ability, encouraging lobby formation, and a better-informed politician.” Without a contribution limit, the government official looks to bigger lobbies because there’s more chance significant funds can be extracted from its members. With a contribution limit, big lobbies can be formed without the expectation of having to have to pay massive fees to play.
Are rent-seeking officials more of the problem than the corporations?
Professor Fred S. McChesney conducted a 2002 study on Pay to Play politics. He reached an unexpected conclusion: “Much of what is popularly perceived as rent seeking by private interests is actually rent extraction by politicians.”
Unfortunately his results, to no fault of his own, do not take into account over a decade’s worth of data. Nevertheless, his findings shift much of the blame of Pay to Play practices towards government officials rather than the corporations. He found, more often than not, corporations look to protect what they already have instead of trying to gain special benefits. The question, of course, of how corporations or interest groups got what they have is one McChesney does not answer. However, the role of politicians in enabling and profiting from Pay to Play politics should not be underestimated.
McChesney challenges the notion that contribution limits would actually stop Pay to Play politics. Why? To repeat, compensation does not have to come in the form of money. Furthermore, politicians extracting wealth from corporations doesn’t necessarily mean they have sold out. As the system currently operates, government officials need money to ‘play’ in their own ‘game’ of politics. We must properly assess how the corporations AND the politicians profit from Pay to Play. But without increased regulations to enforce transparency, questionable deals will continue.
Does Pay to Play Cause Theft?
In 2015, the current POTUS told The Wall Street Journal, “As a businessman and a very substantial donor to very important people, when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do. As a businessman, I need that.”
In summary, Pay to Play politics often leads to one result: we, the public, suffer. How can we trust our government officials when some are willing to sell out for favors, financing, and the like? We’re talking about billions of taxpayer money going to waste on overpriced contracts, as well as legislation that further tips the scales in the favor of big businesses who can afford to lobby.
ZTM is dedicated to waking up and empowering 330 million American citizens. We can all profit from an ethical, powerful, and safe economy if we all play our part in aggressively eliminating the rigged parts of our economy. You can do so by joining our independent and secure voting platform, where citizens thoroughly investigate potential cases of theft and author proposals. The community then votes on (1) whether we have actually been ripped off, and (2) if we have, by how much. That’s how we can hold the bad actors responsible, and government officials accountable.
Standard Disclaimer
The Zero Theft Movement does not have any interest in partisan politics/competition or attacking/defending one side. We seek to eradicate theft from the U.S economy. In other words, how the wealthy and powerful rig the system to steal money from us, the everyday citizen. We need to collectively fight against crony capitalism in order for us to all profit from an ethical economy.
Terms like ‘steal,’ ‘theft,’ and ‘crime’ will frequently appear throughout the article. Zero Theft will NOT adhere strictly to the legal definitions of these terms (since congress sells out). We have broadly and openly defined terms like ‘steal’ and ‘theft’ to refer to the rigged economy and other debated unethical acts that can cause citizens to lose out on money they deserve to keep.