Federal Cases Focus on Political Corruption

There’s been no directive from Washington, no modern-day Eliot Ness in the Justice Department rallying G-men to fight crime that others have chosen to ignore.

But independently, and apparently on their own initiative, federal prosecutors around the country have been waging war on a generations-old practice known as pay-to-play, in which political contributors are rewarded with government contracts or other favors.

In Philadelphia, the public became aware of the battle a year ago when police discovered a bug that the FBI had installed in the mayor’s office.

Since then, the U.S. attorney in Philadelphia has revealed in three rounds of indictments that the investigation centers on allegations that some supporters of Mayor John F. Street were rewarded with contracts.

Simultaneously, federal prosecutors in New Jersey have been investigating alleged influence-peddling in the administration of Gov. James E. McGreevey. A Democratic fundraiser pleaded guilty last month to charges that he promised a farmer millions in government land-preservation money in exchange for a $40,000 campaign contribution.

In Illinois, former Gov. George Ryan was indicted last year, along with dozens of others, on charges of taking payoffs in exchange for giving government contracts and business to friends and associates.

A federal grand jury in Connecticut indicted a top aide to former Gov. John G. Rowland last month on charges that he turned the governor’s office into a racketeering enterprise that traded millions of dollars of taxpayer-funded contracts for gold, cash, trips, meals and vacations.

The prosecutions have unfolded under separate circumstances, in separate states. Some of the administrations under scrutiny have been run by Democrats (Street and McGreevey), others by Republicans (Rowland and Ryan).

But each case has highlighted what legal experts say is a pervasive problem in American politics: elected officials willing to award government contracts or special treatment to supporters who give them campaign money or lavish them with gifts.

“There is clearly more emphasis being placed on this type of corruption by prosecutors these days, and that’s a good thing,” said Robert Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies. “I don’t think it means that there is more corruption going on today, but prosecutors are paying more attention to it.”

Prosecutions of public officials in influence-peddling cases are traditionally seen as among the most difficult to win, in part because the law requires proof that an official promised to take action in return for money.

Most elected officials are smart enough to avoid such “quid-pro-quo” conversations. And when they do have them, federal agents are rarely lucky enough to capture them on tape.

“It is a world of understandings,” said Charles H. Rogovin, Temple University law professor. “You understand that if you give money, something is going to get done on your behalf. You don’t have to say it.”

The practice is so entrenched that some politicians have argued that it is not a crime at all, but business as usual, or simply the way the game is played.

In announcing the first round of indictments in Philadelphia in June, U.S. Atty. Patrick Meehan said he was attacking a “corrupt culture” that had existed for many years, through many mayoral administrations, in which companies seeking government business were ignored unless they gave money to political campaigns.

“You either pay, or you don’t play,” Meehan said. “How can the people of Philadelphia have confidence in a system where the public interest is bought and sold?”

Prosecutors involved in the Philadelphia case said that it was unrelated to the other investigations around the country, and that there had been no push from the Justice Department in Washington to pay more attention to corruption cases.

Elsewhere around the nation, federal prosecutors in Alabama dropped a Medicaid fraud case against former Gov. Don Siegelman and one of his top aides after a judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence to justify a key element of a charge that the two helped a company owned by a supporter win a government health contract.

Ryan, who left office last year without seeking reelection, has pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges. His attorney said the former governor’s actions were “nothing more than the fabric of what goes on in Illinois politics and Illinois government.”

McGreevey, who announced in August that he would resign in November over a homosexual affair, has not been charged. On Sept. 22, he signed an executive order aimed at ending New Jersey’s pay-to-play culture. The order bars companies that do business with any state agency from making campaign contributions to gubernatorial candidates or their parties.

McGreevey acknowledged that his lame-duck status had given him the political courage to make such a move. He also admitted that he would be called a hypocrite and accused of “biting the hand that fed me,” since he had benefited from the system.

Rowland resigned as Connecticut governor in June amid threats of impeachment. He has not been charged with a crime.

Philadelphia’s mayor, Street, has remained untouched so far by the scandal in his administration.

The city’s former treasurer was indicted in June on charges of selling much of his decision-making power over city contracts to a lawyer who was one of Street’s top fundraisers. The lawyer also was charged, as were executives at several financial services firms that handle bond sales and other city business.

Last month, federal prosecutors charged a City Council aide and a mayoral aide with conspiring to give a no-work city contract to a company owned by another Street supporter, the imam at an influential mosque.