Pinstripe Patronage

Martin Tolchin, Susan J. Tolchin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317254188
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Political patronage - awarding discretionary favors in exchange for political support - is alive and well in 21st century America. This book examines the little understood patronage system, showing how it is used by 'pinstripe' elites to subvert the democratic process. 'Pinstripe patronage' thrives on the billions of dollars distributed by government for the privatisation of public services. Martin and Susan Tolchin introduce us to government grants specified for the use of an individual, corporation, or community and 'hybrid agencies', with high salaries for top executives and board members. In return for this corporate welfare pinstipe partons giving politicians the ever-increasing funds needed to conduct their political campaigns. As budget cuts begin to bite, the authors argue that it is time to clamp down on the corrupt practice of pinstripe patronage.

CHAPTER ONE

“THE ONLY WAY TO RUN A GOVERNMENT”

“Politics is the art of putting people under obligation to you.”

Jacob Arvey, Illinois Democratic leader

“Some people, when they want something from somebody, walk up and hit them with a two by four. I walk up and give them hugs and kisses.”

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor, New York City

Justice William Brennan and Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr., both liberal Irish Catholics, arrived in Washington in the 1950s and played major roles in shaping late twentieth century America. But during their forty years as powerful public officials in the nation’s capital, they never met except for handshakes at public events. Once they retired, however, they wanted to get to know one another. After several attempts that failed because of their various health problems, the great Supreme Court jurist and the consummate politician finally lunched together at Washington’s Cosmos Club.

Tip was in rare form. The old Boston “pol” regaled the self-effacing Justice with his successful effort, on behalf of President Bill Clinton, to persuade seventeen House Democrats to support NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Tip recalled that when he was Speaker, President Jimmy Carter sought his help in passing an energy bill during a crisis Carter had called “the moral equivalent of war.” To obtain congressional votes, Tip said, he had urged Carter to “Call the fellows in, see what they want—a highway, a bridge, a veteran’s hospital, a post office.” But Carter considered himself above such mundane, pork barrel politics. He paid the price and obtained an energy bill that only vaguely resembled what he had sought.

When Tip offered the same advice to President Clinton to help round up congressional votes for NAFTA, he recalled, “Clinton understood.” Clinton bartered away highways, bridges, hospitals, post offices, and almost anything else he could get his hands on, and still the bill barely passed. Mary Brennan, the Justice’s conservative wife, was appalled. “Tip,” she said, “that’s a hell of a way to run a government.” The former Speaker beamed his most benign smile and told her, “Mary darling, that’s the only way to run a government.”

Political patronage, awarding the discretionary favors of government in exchange for political support—is alive and well in twenty-first century America. The enormous growth of government in the last century created a concurrent expansion of the discretionary powers of political leaders. Welcomed equally by Democrats and Republicans, these new patronage powers increased their ability to reward constituents and remained the lifeblood of politics and government. Jake Arvey, the late Illinois Democratic leader who fostered Adlai Stevenson’s political career, said there were many definitions of politics, including “the art of the possible” and “the art of compromise.” “But my definition,” he said, “is that politics is the art of putting people under obligation to you.”

Politicians put people under obligation to them through patronage, which cements loyalty up and down the political ladder. Former Michigan Governor Jim Blanchard, appointed ambassador to Canada by President Clinton, was not surprised when his phone rang at the start of the 2008 presidential primary season, and a raspy voice intoned “Mr. Ambassador, we need your help.” How could he refuse Bill Clinton? Blanchard explained, “I’ve had a 20-year relationship with the Clintons,” adding, “I’m intensely loyal.” Blanchard became a strong advocate for Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic nomination for president and even represented her before the Democratic Party’s Rules Committee. Another Democrat, Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, also rallied his troops on behalf of Hillary Clinton during the hotly contested 2008 Democratic primary. Rendell, previously mayor of Philadelphia, had received President Clinton’s support for revitalizing the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and for federal funds to put more police officers on the street. President Clinton also appointed Rendell’s wife, Marjorie O. Rendell, to the district court in 1994 and to the Court of Appeals in 1997 and named Rendell chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2000 election. But some people are less loyal than others. Bill Richardson, whom Clinton appointed UN ambassador and Energy Secretary, and Robert Reich, his Labor Secretary, jumped ship and supported Barack Obama. Richardson evoked the scorn of Clinton attack dog and strategist James Carville, who denounced him as a “Judas.”

New York’s billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg, used both his private fortune and government perks to achieve his political goals. “Some people, when they want something from somebody, walk up and hit them with a two by four,” Bloomberg said. “I walk up and give them hugs and kisses.”

This is the way the world works—usually—in politics and government, the business community, and even in families. The goal is to use favors to deprive recipients of their ability to make independent decisions. In government, those favors come in many forms—from a mayor’s attendance at a wedding, to a governor’s speech at a private dinner, to a president’s invitation to spend a night in the Lincoln bedroom. More substantial favors include zoning variances, tax exemptions, judgeships, refereeships, appointments to boards and commissions, guardianships, insurance contracts, and bank deposits, as well as jobs and billiondollar defense contracts.

In addition to traditional patronage, the new landscape now includes “pinstripe patronage”—billions of dollars in outsourcing, the privatization of services previously conducted by government. Pinstripe patronage also includes earmarks, which are government grants specified for the use of an individual, corporation, or community; and the highly-paid salaries for top executives and board members of hybrid agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are public-private partnerships.

It is called pinstripe patronage because it usually benefits those more at home in a boardroom than on an assembly line, who reciprocate by giving politicians the ever-increasing funds needed to conduct their political campaigns. Pinstripe patronage has replaced the Christmas turkey and snow removal jobs that politicians gave the less fortunate and includes billions of dollars in noncompetitive contracts for Halliburton, Blackwater, and other companies whose executives have given megabucks to both political parties. Their work in Iraq has made these companies American representatives on the world stage, where they have embarrassed America in the eyes of the world.

To critics, political patronage represents the dark underbelly of American politics, whose practitioners are fortunate to keep one step ahead of the sheriff. They believe that patronage breeds corruption, incompetence, and waste. They cite billions in wasted dollars spent on unneeded projects to win political support and the withholding of needed projects to punish political foes. The late Representative John Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat and the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, obtained $150 million in federal payments for the John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, which has an average of fewer than 30 passengers per day. The airport has an $8.5 million, taxpayer-funded radar system that has never been used and is less than a two-hour drive from the Pittsburgh airport.¹ A highly decorated ex-Marine, Murtha represented the twelfth district of Pennsylvania. The committee he chaired oversees appropriations for the Department of Defense, which includes the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and intelligence community.

To its practitioners, however, patronage is an essential ingredient of effective government, and those who disdain its use often find themselves unable to enact and implement their programs. They acknowledge the waste, fraud, and abuse inherent in some traditional patronage practices, but say that they represent the costs of living in a democracy, where people have freedom of choice.

On its most basic level, patronage cements political loyalty; politicians are loyal to those above them who bestow favors upon them, while receiving the loyalty of subordinates who in turn depend on them for favors. A district leader will usually be loyal to a county leader, who will be loyal to a state leader, who will be loyal to a national leader. Thus, a member of Congress often defers to his party leaders and committee chairmen, as well as to the political, business, and labor leaders back home that fund his campaigns.

But other factors sometimes come into play. Representative Bill Brewster, an Oklahoma Republican who served on the board of the National Rifle Association (NRA), switched his NAFTA vote for a promise that President Clinton would go duck hunting with him as a visible sign of support for the NRA. In 1993, two days after Christmas and five weeks after the NAFTA vote, Clinton and Brewster, clad in full hunting regalia, went duck hunting in Oklahoma in sixteen-degree weather. Photographs of the two men in their hunting gear, holding their shotguns, later appeared on the cover of the NRA’s magazine.²

Movers and shakers have long used patronage to achieve their goals. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created a raft of alphabet agencies, which became patronage havens. Instead, he could have placed these agencies in existing cabinet departments whose employees were subject to the civil service laws. In New York, the unelected power broker, Robert Moses (who was appointed to chair state park commissions and bridge and highway authorities), granted thousands of favors—including selecting general contractors for the building of highways, bridges, parks, and government buildings; hiring white- and blue-collar workers recommended by city councilmen, state assemblymen, and state senators; awarding architecture, engineering, underwriting, and insurance contracts to the politically connected; and placing toll receipts in banks owned by politicians. That’s how Moses consolidated decades of his control over the shaping of both the city and state of New York. His favors included moving the Manhattan entrance of the Triboro Bridge from 96th Street to 125th Street to accommodate the media tycoon William Randolph Hearst, who owned real estate between the two streets.³

Indeed, as Tip O’Neill noted, patronage is an essential tool of governing. Those who turn up their noses, like President Carter, often have a difficult time achieving their policy goals. But patronage is also extremely susceptible to corruption—extortion, kickbacks, fraud, and waste, including “no-show” jobs and unnecessary services and projects.

There are so many legitimate ways for politicians to enrich themselves that those who resort to such behavior betray a poverty of imagination. Nevertheless, it sometimes seems that election to high office puts a politician on a glide path to a prison cell. Three former governors of Illinois, representing both parties, were convicted of corruption, and a fourth has been indicted for extortion and fraud. Three successive secretaries of state in New Jersey, also from both parties, wound up with convictions for fraud. Judges, senators, and House members have served time behind bars. A total of more than 20,000 public officials and private citizens were convicted of public corruption in the last two decades, totaling an average of 1,000 per year.⁴ Many have given a bad name to what so many consider an essential tool of government; indeed, it is surprising that with so many politicians behind bars, there hasn’t been more political support for prison reform.

“The Jacksonian ideal was that patronage was efficient,” said Prof. Alvin S. Felzenberg of the University of Pennsylvania. “It ensured accountability because public dissatisfaction with the delivery of services inevitably led to a politician’s vulnerability at the polls.” President George W. Bush’s mishandling of Hurricane Katrina, for example, was traced to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), which was riddled with inept political appointees. “Human nature suggests you can’t run government without patronage,” Felzenberg added, and when there is incompetence or corruption, “the fault isn’t patronage, but those who abuse it, and the purposes for which it is used.”

The tools of patronage have changed since the glory days of the old political machines, whose leaders happily dispensed food for the poor and jobs for ward heelers, those on the lowest level of the political ladder. But as money continues to flow into political campaigns despite major reform efforts, politicians continue to reward supporters despite five decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court that placed severe restrictions on hiring, firing, and promoting government employees, as well as awarding government contracts, on the basis of party affiliation and political support. The Court ignored warnings from many quarters that patronage was the lifeblood of politics and government. Nature abhors a vacuum, and despite all the new laws against “politics as usual,” the empty spaces were quickly filled. In other words, patronage didn’t go away; it just took new forms.

In the first of those cases, in 1976, the court ruled in Elrod v. Burns⁵ in 1976 that the newly elected Cook County (Illinois) sheriff, a Democrat, could not discharge non–civil service employees because they were Republicans. Such discharges violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments’ guarantees of freedom of speech and association, as well as various statutes including the Civil Rights Act of 1871, concluded Justice William Brennan, who wrote the court’s decision. In the second case, in 1980,⁶ Justice John Paul Stevens ruled in Branti v. Finkel that the public defender in Rockland County, New York, a Democrat, could not discharge assistant public defenders who had been satisfactorily performing their jobs solely because they were Republicans. The third case was handed down later, in 1990: Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois.⁷ At this time, the court ruled that Governor James Thompson of Illinois, a Republican, could not base hiring and promotions on financial contributions and service to the Republican Party. “To the victor belong only those spoils that may be constitutionally obtained,” Justice Brennan wrote. Using political affiliation as a basis for hiring and firing, he added, is unconstitutional because it places “burdens on free speech and association.” This protection was finally extended to government contractors in the fourth case, in 1996. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who delivered the court’s opinion in Board of County Commissioners, Wabaunsee County, Kansas v. Umbehr,⁸ ruled that a county could not terminate a contract to haul trash because the contractor was an outspoken critic of the Board of County Commissioners. The court held that the First Amendment protected independent contractors from governmental retaliation against their speech. This opinion was echoed in the fifth case, O’Hare Truck Service vs. City of Northlake,⁹ in a decision by Justice Kennedy delivered the same day.¹⁰

Many assumed that these decisions would have sounded the death knell of political patronage. Not so. In Illinois, New Jersey New York, Louisiana, and Kentucky, among other locales, old-fashioned patronage practices—such as placing supporters in non-exempt government jobs—were thriving well into the twenty-first century. Indeed, examples of political patronage can be found in every state. Although some of its practitioners have recently wound up behind bars, many experts believe that the system is deeply embedded in the culture of many communities and continues to thrive.

But patronage lives on, often in disguise, thanks to soaring government budgets and the phenomenal increase of earmarks on the local, state, and federal level for everything from the arts and sciences to the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” At the same time, there has been a great increase in privatization, outsourcing everything from state hospitals, prisons, and transportation to the war in Iraq. Both earmarks and privatization have provided grist for the patronage mill. There were more contract employees in Iraq, for example, than there were military personnel.

The Supreme Court decisions also coincided with the rise of television, with its increased use in political campaigns. In addition to volunteers needed to obtain signatures on petitions to place a candidate’s name on the ballot and escort voters to the polls, candidates needed megabucks to underwrite their increasingly expensive campaigns. A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2010 added even more fuel to the controversy. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission gave corporations carte blanche in financing elections: to restrict them, said the court, was tantamount to violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In effect, the Court declared vital sections of the McCain-Feingold law on campaign finance unconstitutional and opened the floodgates to corporate money. The decision reversed decades of precedent.¹¹

The cost of television commercials escalated, especially as contests became increasingly negative. Big donors were often rewarded with pinstripe patronage such as lucrative contracts to provide government services and other highly imaginative forms of “boodle”—an old-fashioned word for political patronage. Mayors, governors and even presidents could then call on these contractors to employ political supporters in private sector, nongovernment jobs, thus circumventing the Supreme Court’s restrictions on government employment.

Efforts at privatization and contracting out government services affected local, state, and federal governments. Today it is estimated that more than 50 percent of all federal functions are “contracted out,” most of them without comp...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• 1. “The Only Way to Run a Government”
• 2. Patronage Politics at the Grass Roots
• 3. Statehouse Patronage
• 4. Congress: The Mother Lode
• 5. Justice on eBay
• 6. Presidential Patronage
• 7. Pinstripe Patronage: Outsourcing Government
• 8. Harbinger of Change
• Additional Resources
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index
• About the Authors