This is another installment in my series on corruption. The New York Times ran an article last week about Buddy Cianci entering the race for mayor of Providence. Cianci is a larger than life figure in Rhode Island. Dubbed the “Prince of Providence,” he served two previous stints as mayor of the city – both times ending up forced from office due to felony convictions.
I don’t know the details of the first case, in which he pleaded no contest to a felony assault charge over attacking someone with “a lit cigarette, ashtray and fireplace log.” There’s got to be more to that story than I know because I can’t imagine a felony charge resulting from something like that, or that he’s plead no contest knowing it would get him removed from office.
The second time was he was convicted of racketeering charges (though actually acquitted of all but one of the things he was charged with) as part of an FBI investigation called “Operation Plunder Dome” that resulted in a number of convictions. He did 4+ years in federal prison as a result.
Now Cianci is back and running for office again. Apparently he remains quite popular and there is so much fear among many that he’ll actually win – he’s running as an independent – that various candidates have dropped out of the race in an effort to avoid splitting the vote and letting Cianci somehow slip in.
The fact that Cianci is considered a viable candidate for mayor despite being notoriously corrupt shows something that tends to happen in communities where corruption is the norm. Namely that the people themselves become corrupted in the process.
This actually happened long ago in Rhode Island, which seems to have been crooked about as long as it’s been around. One of the most famous pieces of writing about the state is Lincoln Steffens 1905 McClure’s Magazine screed called “Rhode Island: A State of Sale.” Here’s what he had to say about the matter:
And Rhode Island throws light on another national question, a question that is far more important: Aren’t the people themselves dishonest? The “grafters” who batten on us say so. Politicians have excused their own corruption to me time and again by declaring that “we’re all corrupt,” and promoters and swindlers alike describe their victims as “smart folk who think to beat us at our own game.” Without going into the cynic’s sweeping summary that “man always was and always will be corrupt” it is but fair while we are following the trail of the grafters to consider their plea that the corrupt political System they are upbuilding is founded on the dishonesty of the American people. Is it?
It is in Rhode Island. The System of Rhode Island which has produced the man who is at the head of the political System of the United States is grounded on the lowest layer of corruption that I have found thus far — the bribery of voters with cash at the polls. Other States know the practice. In Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois, and Pennsylvania “workers ” are paid “to get out the vote,” but this is only preliminary; the direct and decisive purchase of power comes later, in conventions and legislatures. In these States the corruptionists buy the people’s representatives. In Rhode Island they buy the people themselves.
Rather than just businessmen buying politicians, the politicians bought voters, and virtually ever voter in the state was on the take, and in fact became quite peeved if their vote wasn’t purchased:
Nine of the towns are absolutely purchasable; that is to say, they “go the way the money goes.” Eleven more can be influenced by the use of money. Many of their voters won’t go to the polls at all unless “there is something in it.” But there need not be much in it. Governor Garvin quoted a political leader in one town who declared that if neither party had money, but one had a box of cigars, “my town would go for that party — if the workers would give up the cigars.” In another town one party had but one man in it who did not take money, and he never voted. A campaign marching club organized for a presidential campaign paraded every night with enthusiasm so great that the leaders thought it would be unnecessary to pay for votes in this town; few of the members voted. Another time, when no money turned up at a State election, one town, by way of rebuke to the regular party managers, elected a Prohibition candidate to the Assembly.
In this environment, the public is mostly indifferent to corruption and can even embrace it as part of the civic identity. Hence the viability of a known crook as a mayoral candidate.
It’s the same in Illinois. Even many of my highly educated professional friends there actually take pride in the state’s corruption, cracking boastful jokes about how it only proves Chicago is the best or something.
As Scott Reeder put it in an article earlier this year:
Well, another state legislator is heading to prison. You won’t hear much outrage in Springfield. Or dismay for that matter. In the grand scheme of things, the conviction of state Rep. Derrick Smith, D-Chicago, on bribery charges is picayune. You’ll hear it whispered around the statehouse: “He ‘only’ took $7,000.”
…
llinoisans have become jaded to criminality among those we elect. A few years back, some Springfield wag printed up bumper stickers that said, “My Governor is a Bigger Crook than Your Governor.” This kind of cynicism has metastases through the electorate leaving political tumors of apathy, inevitability and suspicion.
Derrick Smith, the representative of $7000 bribe fame, was expelled from the House back in 2012 after being indicted, but actually won re-election with 63% of the vote.
And this bit in an article about corruption in Springfield:
Larry Sabato, a nationally recognized political analyst from University of Virginia, adds insight while talking about Illinois in an article written by Dave McKinney for Illinois Issues: “The central and most vital point about corruption is it flourishes where people permit it to, in part because they expect it in the normal course of events. A classic case comes from your state with Otto Kerner being caught solely because the people extending the bribes to him actually deducted it from their taxes as a necessary and ordinary business expense,” he says. “Their argument was, ‘This is how business is done in Illinois.’ That’s what has to change. It’s always up to the people. It’s a democracy. They have to go beyond the images.”
It’s one of the challenges that makes cleaning up corruption so hard. Once it has dug roots deep into the civic soil, the public becomes co-dependent and so there is no constituency for change.
Is THIS why in-migration is so important; because it brings in those who haven’t grown in the corrupted local soil, not simply because they are perceived as a win in the popularity contest between cities? I must confess, I’ve often thought of the obsession with in-migration as the later.
Interesting… as an Illinois native and registered voter, it’s tough to see what actions we might take to reduce corruption. As you have noted in previous articles, neither party is immune to corruption and in any given election, you typically vote based on c candidate’s platform (which you either judge on its own merits or on its adherence to the national platform that you support).
In other words, why would I vote for the honest guy if he has policy ideas I think are wrong? Self-interest does factor into it – I plan to vote for Durbin in the fall precisely because he’s a “Washington insider” ne plus ultra – he has the power to bring resources into Illinois and to push policies that favor IL over other states (like continued Amtrak funding).
A guy dishonest enough to screw over other people to give money to you is dishonest enough to screw you to give money to his cronies.
My favorite corruption story is from Louisiana. Edwin Edwards had been a multi-term governor and convicted felon when he ran again in ’91. His opponent was David Duke, an ex-Klansman/neo-Nazi who came in second in LA’s open primary. Otherwise sensible people, aghast at their choices, bought bumper stickers saying “Vote for the Crook. It’s Important.”
To the credit of Louisianans, their current governor may be the least-corrupt they’ve ever had (admittedly a low standard). It took the incompetence of the state’s preparation and response to Katrina to expose the full costs of their endemic corruption and there has been a remarkable house-cleaning since then. Maybe it would take a similar catastrophe to cause the people of IL/Chicago or RI/Providence to similarly reassess the true costs of the corruption they tolerate. Not that I would wish for one.
Roland, how do voters even know which guy is the honest one, or if there’s even an honest guy on the ballot? When corruption is so ingrained in the elite, voters see a guy with a clean record and wonder if he just hasn’t been caught yet.
Count me skeptical on Aaron’s evidence-short cultural theses. With Rhode Island he provided an example of a proven-corrupt pol getting votes; it’d be nice if he provided parallel data for Illinois other than his friends’ jokes.
Alon, Illinois is seriously hosed by the distribution of federal burden/largesse, and has been for generations; if anything a more aggressive self-defense would be appropriate. “Screw over other people” is not a fair characterization of what Roland’s talking about.
I retract my request for parallel IL data, I missed the Derrick Smith sentence.
The reason Buddy may become mayor again is that a lot of Rhode Islanders remember what Providence used to be like (a s***hole). Under his leadership it truly had a rebirth.
Also this city is tiny, Buddy’s always out and about and he’ll actually stand around and chat with you like he’s got nothing else to do.
The other reason I think people give him a pass on corruption is that he wasn’t a fraudster, he didn’t do it to enrich himself personally. Patronage was just how he kept control and got things done. The Prince of Providence is a fascinating read even if you don’t live here!
Edwin Edwards is running for Congress again. He likely won’t win, but that’s probably because he’s a Democrat, not because he’s a crook.
One other note, furthering California’s point:
In a corrupt system, corruption is often required to get anything done. Much as professional cyclists who don’t dope themselves up simply don’t win any races :P, honest politicians simply get nowhere in a place like Rhode Island.
As many have said, Providence is very small. Easy enough to avoid a small, corrupt little town.
I know that in Detroit, Mayor Mike Duggan’s shady business shenanigans don’t bother people in the slightest. In their minds, it means he has connections and knows how to get deals done. They patently refuse to see it as more of the same, even though the political machine that Duggan emerged from – the McNamara Machine – is notorious for corruption. All that matters is that we know he won’t engage in any “us vs. them” rhetoric.
Or, in more simple terms, we know he won’t question investment from the white community. In fact, he’ll facilitate it, and if he takes a cut from it, we’ll judge it well-earned. We all understand that America is about making as much money as you can. It’s OK to bend the rules if it’s going to profit you. After all, we live in a society we’re exploiting tax loopholes is considerable an honorable act.
Go figure.
As someone that has spent my entire life either living or working in Cook County with the exception of 4 years of college, it’s apt how several people noted the premium placed on “getting things done”. Local politicians are judged by voters much more on what are perceived to be tangible economic and infrastructure projects compared to state or federal-level politicians (where broader policy issues come into play more), which means they are rewarded for “getting things done” regardless of the means.
Compounding this issue is that the typical challengers to the status quo disproportionately are representing a particular special interest group or one-sided political view (i.e. union partisans that don’t understand (or refuse to acknowledge) global economic realities on the left, Tea Party activists whose only plank is to cut spending without details on the right). So, people with a lot of skin in the political game (local businesses, real estate developers, etc.) would rather prop up a corrupt incumbent that might look “reasonable” by comparison. Businesses DON’T want the old Chicago City Council Wars that occurred in between the two Daley administrations. They’d much rather have cities be quasi-banana republics (and to be sure, the residents that benefit the global economy usually like that whether they’d admit it or not.
“In Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois, and Pennsylvania “workers ” are paid “to get out the vote,” but this is only preliminary; the direct and decisive purchase of power comes later, in conventions and legislatures.”
But wait…didn’t the SCOTUS rule that that’s our constitutional right?