Cannon is the pay-to-play exception in politics
Published April 4, 2014
by Tom Terrell, attorney, published in Charlotte Observer, April 4, 2014.
Like all of us, I watched the news unfold last week to learn about allegations that another elected official – this time one of our own – had learned to monetize and commoditize the powers that were entrusted to him by the good people of his community.
Patrick Cannon is accused of breaking several criminal laws, but if so his sin was that he violated a contract – a contract negotiated by our forebears who believed in the virtues of self-governance and held high hopes for the future of a nation ruled by law. It is a contract that arose from a notion that any person, regardless of station or birth, could be chosen by citizens to enact and carry out laws for the benefit of all.
And it is a contract that was perfected to include citizens of any gender, any sexual orientation, any religious background, and yes, any race.
The terms of the contract are as simple as they are grand. We the people grant powers to ordinary citizens to make or execute laws, and in return, they agree to use that power for the benefit of us, the governed.
Our senators, congress members, city council members, judges and mayors hold that power in trust as fiduciaries of the common good.
I feel sad for Charlotte, and even sad for former Mayor Cannon. But mostly I feel sad for the thousands of men and women elected or appointed to public office who uphold the contract day by humble day, always giving, often sacrificing, and never expecting anything in return.
We may have allowed political corruption to become an occasional and salacious spectator sport, but we’ve never allowed it to become our culture.
Over 29 years I have represented citizens, developers, property owners, cities, counties, and governmental agencies in somewhere between 150 and 200 different communities throughout our state. I have never had a citizen or developer ask whether there might be a way to purchase favorable treatment, nor have I ever experienced a planner, board member or elected official hint that a payment or anything else of value would result in a certain outcome.
Patrick Cannon became a headline because he is the exception, a point that gets lost in the many articles and editorials we’ve read.
Nonetheless, each Patrick Cannon adds one more log to the smoldering fire of suspicion in our nation’s mind that most of our elected officials are on the take. And that is sad.
It’s easy to repeat the worn adage that power corrupts. What we should remember is that power and self-governance also ennoble us, in large ways and small, as we go about the daily and sometimes tedious business of running our democratic institutions for the people.
Unfortunately, those are the acts and decisions that don’t create headlines.
Tom Terrell is an attorney who represents both developers and local governments statewide for the firm Smith Moore Leatherwood in Greensboro. He writes on land use, zoning and development in a blog, where this first appeared.
April 4, 2014 at 8:14 am
TP Wohlford says:
No, they normally aren't this stupid. They might not be able to spell "Kilpatrick" or "Blagojevich" but most politicians know how those guys screwed up. Cannon is, therefore, the exception only in that he's "that stupid."
No, the way to do it is that you have a "campaign fund." Amazingly, if you contribute large amounts of money to a politician, you tend to get some "access". It's our way to clean up, to legalize, what would otherwise be called "bribes".
Most large donors look at campaign contributions as sort of a marketing / advertising cost. If you're doing $1 billion in business with the government, or in something that requires government approval, then putting a couple of million into various campaign funds makes a lot of sense. In fact, it looks downright cheap compared to legal costs later on, or compared to lost business opportunities.
And both parties do it. Both parties, for instance, have sold their voters down the river in the matter of illegal immigration. Dems used to be DEATH on immigration, wanting to protect union workers. And the GOP is supposed to be big on cutting welfare, controlling crime, and insuring good ole "American" values. But both parties have turned a blind eye because their big billionaire and corporate (and in the case of the Dems, union!) donors have pumped large amounts of money into campaign coffers.
It was correct that the TEA people and the Occupy people both had the same gripe -- that "the system" worked for the rich and powerful to the detriment of those not in that group. (This is where I note that no TEA person has defecated on a cop car at their rally, nor have they incited any riots or covered urban areas with graffiti, so there ARE substantial differences.)
