I have all but called for prohibiting mayoral golf tournaments and similar pet nonprofit events,
because they are an unnecessary form of pay to play that is legal primarily
because they help good causes in the community. China, which tends
to take things too far, has gone extremely far in the latest order
of the Communist Party's Central Committee, according to <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/china/21677264-why-banning-golf-wont-curb…; target="_blank">an
article in last week's <i>Economist</i></a>. In order to lessen
corruption, the Party has prohibited all 88 million of its members
from playing golf.<br>
<br>
The question the <i>Economist</i> asks is, are officials corrupt
because they play golf, or can they afford to play golf because they
are corrupt? In other words, golf is a symptom rather than a cause
of corruption, even if secret deals are often done on fairways and in the rough.<br>
<br>
Things are different in the U.S. Even the most honest government officials
can afford to play golf, although they usually can't afford to join a fancy
country club. But mayoral golf tournaments, and other nonprofit ways
for high-level officials to help their favorite charities are neither symptoms nor causes. They are a legal means for
the misuse of office to help an official's reputation, usually paid for by those seeking special benefits from the
government, especially contractors, developers, and grantees.<br>
<br>
The latest nonprofit approach — the mayoral booster organization — as
exemplified by the <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/problems-mayoral-booster-organization…; target="_blank">NYC
mayor's Campaign for One New York</a> and the DC mayor's FreshPAC, takes the mayoral golf tournament into the 21st century. The good
news is that, just yesterday, <a href="http://https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/closing-the-door-on-fres…; target="_blank">according
to the Washington <i>Post</i></a>, FreshPAC let it be known that it is being shut down
due to criticism (it has become a "distraction," its treasurer
said). This criticism has not yet worked in New York City.<br>
<br>
Golf or no golf, nonprofit arms of government officials are
distractions because they are reasonably seen as vehicles for pay to
play and for restricted sources to get undue influence and
preferential treatment. Golf and support for mayoral programs should
not be prohibited, but officials should be prohibited from seeking
money, directly or indirectly, from those who seek special benefits
from their administrations. Without these restricted sources, there
would be no mayoral golf tournaments and no mayoral booster
organizations. Prohibit gifts from restricted sources to these nonprofits and PACs, and they need not be prohibited.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br />
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br />