Christmas Tree

Who are you kidding, Terry? What is being investigated by the United States Attorney is more than just bad government, for crying out loud! It is the criminal conversion of public resources for personal purposes by legislators, and in at least one instance, by a former United States Representative, who this State just elected to the United States Senate.

It is not just, or even primarily about Christmas tree items, either on the State or federal level. The first (and continuing) public target of such activity in New Jersey was our newly elected United States Senator, Robert Menendez, who is still under investigation for having entered into an unlawful contractual relationship with the United States by leasing his real property to the North Hudson Community Action Corporation, a long-time recipient of federal funds through a Community Action block grant.

His rent was being paid with federal pass-through money. In other words, Menendez found a way to load his own pockets off the federal taxpayers, and was in an obvious position to use his influence to help secure the funding, and to keep the organization as a party to the lease, which lasted for years.

The federal statute prohibiting such relationships, was originally passed in 1808 during the Tenth Congress, and was signed into law by President Thomas Jefferson! Though it has been amended and updated on a few occasions, the general prohibition on Members of Congress from so contracting with the federal government has been the law of the land, without interruption for 199 years! If you would like to look up the original statute, it was signed by President Jefferson on April 21, 1808, and was designated as Chapter XLVIII, An Act concerning public contracts. That would be Chapter 48, and is summarized in the statutes as follows:

No member of Congress to have any public contract, under authority of the United States, directly or indirectly.

Think about it. What could be more obvious than that the Members of Congress cannot be permitted to personally share in the largess that they themselves appropriate? It was certainly clear to our founders, very nearly at the onset of the Republic. And that statute, as amended, is still the law of the United States, found at 42 USC 22. The statute is also found in Chapter 3 of the Ethics Manual he was handed the first day he went to Congress, as follows:

41 United States Code, sec, 22. Interest of Member of Congress: No Member of Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of any contract or agreement made, entered into, or accepted by or on behalf of the United States, or to any benefit to arise thereupon. . . . .

On the state level, at least one of our state legislators has reportedly been personally loading his pockets through manipulation of the budget process. The US Attorney is reportedly looking at others as well. Good for him!

As the New York Times reported months ago the federal monitor of UMDNJ, former Federal Judge Herbert Stern, made it quite clear in his report that State Senator Wayne Bryant, former head of the appropriations and budget committee, and the Budget Oversight committee, had secured several “teaching� positions, one with UMDNJ for $35,000.00, for which he did little or no work.

According to the Report, he had no duties other than to secure UMDNJ a handsome appropriation, and that he did. Their legislative budget earmarks went from $2.3 million to over $4 million over the course of just three years. In other words, according to the report, Bryant was acting as a lobbyist for UMDNJ – that is, lobbying himself! That is only one of the “personally enriching� transgressions engaged in by Bryant.

So, the United States Attorney has made it very clear what he has been looking at. If he did not pursue this investigation he would be remiss, and we would be the big losers. Our budget process has become completely corrupted by these bad actors, and it’s time to clean them out. More importantly, if Christie had not pursued this investigation, we in the public likely would have never known any of the specifics about the activities, because they were deliberately hidden through “anonymous� resolutions. So how would we have known to vote the rascals out?

Hell, even the Governor himself is still pleading ignorance – or stupidity -- on the legality of the items added at the last minute in the FY 2007 budget rip-off -- $378 Million worth. And that is his specific constitutional responsibility -- to examine each and every one of the items and cut out, or redline what he believes is inappropriate.  But when asked a few days ago if any items were inappropriate, he said, "How do I know?"

In short, your post is utterly unpersuasive. That’s about the kindest thing I can say about it. You have attempted to reduce a complex and unprecedented investigation aimed at personal financial aggrandizement by legislators, to the phony suggestion that it is just aimed at harmless legislative earmarks intended for the "worthy" and "needy." Rubbish!

by Trochilus

Craigscreative – Respectfully, I would challenge your basic assumption – that most people do not think legal vs illegal.

Do not most people draw the appropriate conclusions when it is shown that their legislators or other representatives have violated our criminal laws, federal or State?

Those are the bottom line rules we all have consented to, and which have thereby been established through our political process. They are the rules by which our society in general and political process in particular, must draw the line. The criminal laws are established – with attendant extraordinary safeguards -- as a basis on which a reasoned as opposed to a rumored or biased judgment can be made about the behavior of our fellow citizens, including those criminal laws applying to our representatives. And conviction disqualifies them from continuing as representatives, as I believe it should.  

Right vs wrong however, can be a largely subjective basis on which to make judgments that may or may not lead to a reasoned conclusion, particularly depending on the point of view of the observer.

For example, the residents of Happyville may be very pleased indeed that their legislator sneaks a disproportionate number of extra budget resolutions into and eventually through the funding process, and “brings home the bacon.� They will not see that as wrong, even if it means that DourTown gets zip as a result. Nor will they in consequence “vote the bum out� which is Terry Golway's only "solution." 

And I say extra, by the way, because the regular needs-based, formula-driven political process regularly funds a significant number of local organizations statewide, largely through DCA and Human Services grants, using both federal and/or state dollars. These Departments have pools of “discretionary grant� money as well. Those grants are not a part of the Christmas tree process, a point completely ignored by Terry in his original post here. What he wrote I believe, distorts an accurate overview of the process.

The Christmas tree items are predominantly “afterthoughts� any one of which may well have arisen out of a previously unrecognized and legitimate need. Or, any one of them may have been inserted as a result of a screw-up at the local level which is being “covered-up.�

Or – and here’s the rub -- any one of them may incorporate outright corruption. So if Happyville’s representative also gets an appropriation for an organization that employs local people and responds well to a local need, that is one thing. But if he anonymously secures funding – Christmas tree or not -- for a local organization that hires his wife and daughter at fat salaries, or which employs his law firm to do their legal work, that is evidence of corruption, and legal vs illegal can and should come into play. The prosecutor may end up concluding that it is more properly dealt with in the political realm or he may decide to prosecute. Or it may ultimately be played out as an ethics issue.

Finally, one really grating issue being faced right now, is that public funds – your tax dollars -- are being expended to hire and pay for private attorneys to personally defend the reputedly offending legislators, by fighting the subpoenas of prosecutors who are trying to fight that corruption.

How would you approach that one? Right or wrong? Or, should it be illegal?

by Trochilus

Mr. Democrat - Agreed. That is indeed a portion of what legislators do; they try to bring home the bacon.

Few have serious objections to that. From a policy perspective, to keep the process from remaining corrupt -- as it obviously has become -- it is necessary that the resolutions are

• transparent, that is, that they are clearly identified as to sponsor, and
• introduced with sufficient time so that adequate notice is given to the over-taxed public of what their representatives intend to spend.  

That lack of transparency and adequate notice is what has corrupted the budget process over time.

A notice requirement would probably also take care of the recent inordinate size of such expenditures as well. During the last budget, $378 million in such items were added at the last second, clearly a record. I'm sure you would agree that should be curtailed.

My objection to what Terry Golway wrote, was his false suggestion that the U.S. Attorney is now just "investigating" the Christmas tree process, which is pretty obviously nonsense. Fran Wood tried to sell the same hocum in the Star-Ledger a few weeks ago, too.

Obviously, the aim of Christie's investigation is to link specific legislators -- and possibly executive officials -- to personally enriching expenditures, including business and (I would think) primary family enriching expenditures.  Also any quid pro quo for contributions.  Those are, and should be unlawful.

And, I believe it is also outrageous for anyone to have the temerity to approve the spending of taxpayer funds to pay for an attorney to challenge a subpoena of the records of a legislator who was reportedly using his position personally enrich himself, and his law firm. Codey told Michael Arons that the hiring of Dauber to pursue the attorney-client privilege claim was only about Bryant.

So, we're paying for an attorney for Wayne Bryant to keep the U.S. Attorney from gathering evidence that Wayne Bryant used his official position to personally enrich himself at taxpayer expense.  It's a beautiful thing, no!

by Trochilus