Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News White House Bribery Scandal

  1. Jun 13, 2010 #1

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I made reference to this in another thread and I had been meaning to open a thread on it for a while - I get the feeling not many people heard about it because it didn't get much traction in the media. It was a local story, though, so I heard it before it even went national:
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/28/sestak.obama.senate/index.html

    An explanation of the back-story for those unfamiliar with the situation: Democrat Joe Sestak challenged and beat party-switching former Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania in his primary election this spring. Specter is a high ranking Senator who has been in government for almost 50 years, having cut his chops during the Kennedy assassination investigation. He was a powerful ally for Obama and Obama did what he could to protect him from a difficult challenge, hoping that the moderate to slightly democratic Pennsylvania would re-elect him in the fall if he could just get past the primary.

    Now there are actually three stories here:

    First, is this action inethical and/or criminal? Inethical is easy: it is. Criminal is a little tougher. Obviously, the crime, if it fits the criteria, is bribery. Here's an op-ed discussing the issue:
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0528/Sestak-Clinton-and-Obama-Was-it-a-bribe

    So the basic criteria for bribery are straightforward and clearly apply. It's the "official act" part that is more difficult and where the author of the op-ed doesn't see a clear enough connection to apply it. In essence, he argues that the quid pro quo must be for clear "official act" such as buying a vote. In this case, the "act" was dropping out of a Senate race and there was nothing else Sestak was to do for Obama.

    In my opinion, the spirit of such a law should be focused on the person who commits the crime, not the person being bribed (a separate law should exist for them) and Obama here intended a quid pro quo for personal gain. To me, that is the spirit of bribery. I honestly don't know if the statute was meant to be that way or not, though. However, for the President, the statute means whatever the House of Representatives wants it to mean, so since we have a Democratic house, he won't be impeached. If we had a Republican house, perhaps he would be.

    The second story here is what this means for Obama as a force of "change" in Washington. Clearly, it means he is exactly the type of unscrupulous Washington insider/player that he told us he wasn't. Not that I ever believed him anyway, but a lot of people did. Be sure this will come up in October of 2012.

    The third story here is that the story isn't over. Sestak is currently not talking about the issue anymore. He's stuck. The issue first broke in February, before the primary, but then as today, Sestak would damage his election chances by attacking Obama. Sestak can use it as evidence he is an ethical person, but I don't know it helps him much: it was a softball offer. The potential damage to his November prospects by losing support from Obama could be huge. But what happens on November 3rd? Obama needs to pull out all the stops for Sestak. Yes, Sestak is a Democrat, which is one good reason to pull for him, but also, what if Sestak loses? If Sestak loses and decides to become a private citizen again, he may just write a book and start talking again. Obama surely would not want that.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 13, 2010 #2

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yea but.. is a public official's 'official act' to be re-elected? It is his prerogative and a privilege to run for re-election on public funds, but it is by no means his official duty
     
  4. Jun 13, 2010 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That was the way the author of the op-ed saw it. The way I see it, the benefit for the one doing the bribing should be the focus. With bribery, there are (can be) really two separate crimes: bribing and being bribed and I see no reason why they need to be equivalent to each other.

    Let me give a non-government example I see as being similar: I have a large client that has been giving my company crappy little projects because the highest level project manager doesn't like my boss. The low-end project managers (with their crappy little projects) love me. If my boss were to offer the high-level project manager a job/cash/a boat in exchange for his retirement/leaving the company so that one of the low-end project managers could move up into his position, would that be bribery? Retiring(or not) isn't an "official duty", but enticing him to retire would certainly benefit my company.

    Anyway, textbook bribery or not, do you at least agree that these scenarios are unethical?
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2010
  5. Jun 13, 2010 #4

    CRGreathouse

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I think these sorts of things are extremely common, regardless of the propriety or legality.
     
  6. Jun 13, 2010 #5
    this. the official is not being asked to use the power of his office (official acts), he's being asked not to run for an office. while possibly unethical(and it certainly looks bad), i don't see it as being illegal. and more to the point, i think it is the way both parties run. i believe they both encourage or discourage members to seek this office or not on a regular basis, for what the leadership sees as the overall strategy for political power. and, despite not being the DNC chairman, the presidency is normally seen as the head of either party in power, so naturally, presidents get involved in these things.

    if this were a republican president, the press would make much more of it, tho.
     
  7. Jun 13, 2010 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's not what I asked, unless you are arguing that being common makes it ok?
     
  8. Jun 13, 2010 #7

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't think he is arguing that. But being so common does make it very difficult to stop - the opposition doesn't want to make a fuss about it because they know they'll do it next time they get a chance.
     
  9. Jun 13, 2010 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There was nothing wrong with this; at least not from what I've seen. Politics is the art of what's possible; it is dealmaking by definition. That is how politics works. The question is, when is a "deal" illegal, or unethical. Its not like you can take "the deal" out of politics completely. Nothing would ever happen!

    When you can find nothing of substance to attack in your opponent, you go for stories like this. You start swingly blindly and hoping to hit something, ie, Hmmmm, even though nothing illegal was done, we need something, so maybe we can spin this in such a way that we get some traction with the gullible masses.

    Obviously the Obama admin saw an advantage in having a different candidate. Maybe they don't think Sestak can win in November. Maybe they would prefer to see someone who supports a specific program or agenda - say for example a comprehensive energy policy. Also, I don't think the job even came with a salary.

    If the admin had started making threats, even that would okay within certain limits. Exactly when a political threat is out of bounds depends on the specifics of threat. Obviously any threat that is illegal is over the line. If large amounts of cash or personal perks were involved in swinging a vote, that would be unethical and illegal. But asking someone not to run while offering a alternative is hardly a dirty deal. For some reason, they thought the country is best served if Sestak doesn't run. So they tried to find an alternative acceptable to everyone.

    Frankly, I'm glad to see the admin using Clinton like this. He is well-suited for the role of internal diplomat. Also, Emanuel is known for being harsh and abrasive, so this was a particularly smart move on Emanuel's part - provided that nothing was done, beyond what I've seen so far, that would raise this to a different level. So far, it sounds like the Obama admin was just doing their job. Also, notably, Sestak doesn't seem to be complaining. It's not like he's started a crusade over this.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2010
  10. Jun 13, 2010 #9
    i think there is a simpler explanation here. a senior senator is much more powerful than a junior senator. what is best served here is the administration.
     
  11. Jun 13, 2010 #10

    Hepth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't even view that as unethical... well, a boat maybe because its not really relevant. But whats the difference between this and a severance package offer? Whether its because they don't like you, don't need you, etc. it appears to be a deal that's beneficial for both the company and the person they don't want to work there. Is offering someone more money to do more work also "bribing" them? No, its a pay increase.

    I don't think of any of this as unethical or illegal as its VERY similar to a severance offer which is common practice. I don't think the legality is affected by the REASON behind the offer, nor the ethics; but I do see it as blatant political strategy which while I think may be a bit tactless isn't wrong.
     
  12. Jun 13, 2010 #11
    Its not equivalence. Its about what constitutes bribery. Offering something to someone which may influence them to take action to your benefit is common practice. Its the nature of what the person is being influenced to do that defines bribery.
     
  13. Jun 14, 2010 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Agreed, but how common is this really?
    I'm not so sure. This isn't something I've heard happening a lot. The only other one I've ever heard of is the Blagojevich thing, with the difference being while Blag solicited a bribe to give someone a job, Obama offered a bribe to get someone not to go after a job.
     
  14. Jun 14, 2010 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Really? Blagojevich was just making a deal too - why was he arrested for his? Why do you see them as being different from each other?
    Yes, so..... when is it?
    So you're saying that something must be illegal in order to be inethical?
    As I explained, Sestak is stuck right now. He can't complain: he has an electon to win in November and he needs Obama. But stay tuned: he might lose.
    If this were coming from one of your favorite punching bags like Rush or Beck, it would be easier to dismiss. But Obama is also taking heat from liberal media commentators and Democratic politicians:
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/07/zelizer.obama.change.politics/index.html?iref=allsearch

    To be sure, this criticism doesn't use words like "inethical" or "bribery", but the tone of the story is still negative towards Obama - which is saying an awful lot considering the source.

    And Obama certainly took the issue seriously: he didn't defend it himself or even have his press secretary Bill Clinton make the explanation. He had a legal advisor do it. Carefully measured lawyerspeak does not inspire confidence that he really believes there was nothing to this.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2010
  15. Jun 14, 2010 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    A severance package is given to you by your company....perhaps you misread my post?
     
  16. Jun 14, 2010 #15
    It may be useful to stand back a moment and look at the variations of quid pro quo.

    A champagne contribution consists of funds in advance of expected return on investment, and a bet that the elected party will both be elected and return value.

    Lobbyist funds, in advance of legislation, perform the same function but enrich a candidate already elected. With the lesser risk of a candidate in office, high cost for the same expectations should be presumed.

    Bribery is ... well, it's the same as Lobbying.

    I was going to bring up quid pro quo #3: payment for services rendered after the fact, but it's superfluous to this thread, and basically the same as bribery. If a lobbyist group fails to pay-up under expectations they cut their own throats for the next deal. This doesn't happen very often, as you can imagine. Word gets around capitol hill very quickly.

    Quiz question: 1) What industry in the greater Washington DC area provides the greatest cash inflow?

    2) Who arrived first at the first congressional meeting?
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2010
  17. Jun 14, 2010 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No. You're misunderstanding the concept of quid pro quo and/or how it applies to lobbying. A quid pro quo (bribery) is an agreement. A gift in exchange for an action. Lobbying, by law, is not allowed to include a quid pro quo. Consider:

    Case 1: Lobbyist to politician: "Here's a big bag of money....in a completely unrelated matter, I think you should vote for this bill.

    The politician has made no promises and gets the money regardless of whether he votes for the bill or not. The lobbyist has not stated that the money comes with the requirement/agreement of voting for the bill. Hence, no quid pro quo - no bribery. Note: lobbyists do tend to give money to both sides of the isle and therefore expect that when the vote is cast, a lot of money they spent will have ended up going to a candidate that doesn't vote for their cause.

    Case 2: Lobbyist to politician: "Here's a big bag of money in exchange for voting for this bill." (and it happens)

    This is quid pro quo. Bribery. The money is for the vote. If the politician is unscrupulous, the lobbyist would be well advised to protect his money - perhaps in a half now/half later arrangement. The Sestak case works this way: The benefit for Sestak would have come after his action - Sestak didn't do what was asked, so he doesn't get the promised benefit. That is (would have been) quid pro quo.

    So case 1 is legal, case 2 is illegal. Note, that the line can be pretty thin, especially when people talk in riddles, so the law on lobbying does attempt to make protections against crossing the line. Similar ethics rules exist for businesses, too:

    A few weeks ago I took a client out for golf on a workday. The very next day, I received a no-bid contract with that client. Bribery? I'll be back later to discuss...
     
  18. Jun 14, 2010 #17
    I would think that the standard party procedure would have been for the Democratic party to contact the candidate and ask him or her not to run. This must happen all the time. We could assume that this was done and Sestak did not comply. This constituted a raising of the stakes. While political postering to make yourself more marketable in the next election or more powerful at the next vote isn't uncommon, this is obviously slightly more dubious.

    I believe that this is not nearly as bad as the Blanko mess, but it was def an attempt at offering a reward for compliance with the party's wishes. I don't see an impeachment trial or charges being filed in the future, but I do see Obama's figure being tarnished. Clinton's too for that matter.
     
  19. Jun 14, 2010 #18

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Yes, it is unethical. The whole point of elections, including primaries, is to allow the public to decide who represents their interests in the government. It shouldn't be up to a few executive party members to decide who becomes candidate or not.

    There is a similar situation in NY with Sen. Gillibrand. Apparently Obama (or someone in his administration) put pressure on the state Democratic party to forego a primary for the office. Many folk in NY are not pleased with that interference.
     
  20. Jun 14, 2010 #19

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Definitely not illegal, for the reason Proton Soup gave.

    When you're describing the ethics of it, or the ethics of lobbying, I think the shades are a lot greyer.

    I think this is a lot closer to things like replacing the previous administration's appointees with your own appointees (such as US Federal Attorneys). You have to look at the details before deciding on the ethics. Replacing or promoting your own preferences is legitimate. Using that sort of influence as punishment and/or a threat to others to influence behavior on specific issues is crossing the line on ethics.

    I don't think that was the case in this instance.
     
  21. Jun 14, 2010 #20
    The way I see it the man is looking at running for a certain "job". While he has that job right now he will necessarily cease that position at a predetermined time unless he can get himself "rehired". The Obama admin is offering him another job giving him a choice. I can not see that as bribery especially since the offered position is unpaid.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook