Complicity

So let me get this straight. Former Premier Alex Scott is concerned that Premier Ewart Brown’s upcoming fundraiser for the PLP may create a perception of corruption, since it will allow people to “literally buy into Government”. Yet Mr. Scott sees nothing wrong with his handling of last year’s pay-to-play scandal that engulfed his then-Deputy because, "What I was seen to do publicly and what I did behind the scenes were two different things”.

Almost by definition, you can’t change a public perception of corruption – which is precisely what was created by the pay-to-play scandal – by doing things behind the scenes. You need to be seen to be dealing with the matter directly and openly. Mr. Scott conspicuously failed to do this, both by refusing to answer the Royal Gazette’s questions on the matter, and by failing to instruct Finance Minister Paula Cox to include an investigation of Dr. Brown’s activities in her Ministry’s review of the public pension funds.

With reasoning like that, I'm amazed that anyone would give Mr. Scott offers for PR and communications work.

Comments

[JJ on 23.11.06 at 07:21]

yes it's quite amazing how "smart" he has become since leaving office It's almost like he was too scared to challenge Doc Brown when he was Premier and pandered to his ways.

[jake on 23.11.06 at 07:57]

He was never suited to be Premier. He still thinks he is relevant to the debate, having been chucked out and never tested as leader during an election.

I would feel sorry for him if he would only gracefully bow out. Instead we have the former criticizing the present just as we start to get the ball rolling. It's as if he would prefer a PLP loss. That's why the Delegates gave him the shove - too internally focused on what Central Committee wants and not what Bermuda needs.

Sad really. He really is sad.

[J Starling on 24.11.06 at 08:15]

From reading Mr. Scott's comments and reviewing the recent trend in Gazette front page stories (Post Dr. Brown's election), it seems most likely that the Gazette contacted him and asked him a few questions, to qhich he responded. I highly doubt he thought it would be for a front page hatchet job - though to be honest he should have figured it might have been. Its the same thing with the Black Governor story. From here it looks like the Gazette has removed completely its facade of impartiality and is doing the Oppositions job for it. Pathetic.

And what rot coming from Pat Gordon-Pamplin. Opposition to foriegn donations because 'he who pays the piper calls the tune" but complete obeisiance to "already here" international business. So, intl business pays the piper UBP and calls its tune as well? No wonder the Bermuda Employers Council and the UBP have identical press releases. The only logical argument that the she should have made is that since large donations from overseas are often corporate ones with strings attached, it stands to reason that donations from corporations already domiciled in Bermuda also have strings attached. Therefore, all corporate donations should be abolished. Furthermore, since corporations have long since mastered the art of shell companies or fronts, it stands to reason that corporate funds might be channeled into the Parties via 'private individuals' donations ie. individual people as opposed to corporations, and so this needs be abolished too. Therefore, the only just approach is to limit all Parties electioneering to a set amount of money and media time, set aside by the government. So the State, that is the people's money, pays the pipers, and so the piper plays the tune called by the people. Equal funds and resources for all parties, paid for and limited by the state - administered transparently and independently to avoid unfairness. All other funds/electioneering to be illegal. Ultimately the only difference between the parties then becomes the ideological one. Perhaps the UBP is scared of this because they cannot survive in a fair fight with the PLP? Perhaps the feeling is mutual? Who knows, but her arguement is wholly contraditary and hypocritical.

[SmokingGun on 24.11.06 at 13:22]

"That's why the Delegates gave him the shove - too internally focused on what Central Committee wants and not what Bermuda needs."

Jake - do you really believe there has been a fundamental change? For sure one might give Scott some credit should he shift over to the UBP and expose all the stuff he's doing as an outsider rather than from the back-benches of the PLP. But the truth is he is absolutely right and complicit to boot.

Change? Just look at Premier Brown's stance on the hospital. Everyone continues to harp on about how the PLP Government listened to the people about not taking away the Botanical Gardens. Premier Brown was up to his eyeballs in the decision to build there and yet he's been back-peddling for weeks on it and claiming he's re-doing the whole thing. The gardens issue is just a miniscule part of the "real" problem we are dealing with. And that's the total deceitful handling of the hospital in the first place. And no-one's rallying up to ask the real hard questions such as who, why, where, when and how much is involved? The people "won" a small battle whilst they are clueless as to how $720 million dollars is being spent on an "urgent project" involving the welfare of all of Bermuda. And Doc Brown and his staff would be very happy if they can convince us all that the only real issue was saving the gardens. Come on folks.

Alex Scott's comments on the Premier's Gala/PLP Fund Raiser AKA "Shake down on Front Street" are absolutely correct. It's no different than the THE Foundation's last minute money grab to shore up the finances of an over-bloated music festival. Did you notice the names on the list? Some had absolutely nothing to do with tourism, music nor operate in Bermuda.

I never liked the fact that the PLP took the $2million from The Dutchman to pay off Alaska Hall's mortgage but at least the guy's lived here in Bermuda pushing twenty years. I for one would very much like our Print/TV/Radio media to get on the case as to who exactly is coming in to spend $25,000 buckaroos to bend the ear and bag a polaroid with the New P.

Pay to Play has been taken to the next level.

[SmokingGun on 24.11.06 at 14:21]

Dang that didn't take long. Just read the Online RG:

"And a partnership with Kurron Shares of America has been formally made, three years after Kurron reviewed the set-up of the hospital and recommended 200 specific and detailed recommendations for improvements.
Kurron is doing an audit on its earlier review to see which of the recommendations have been implemented and will work with the hospital to measure the improvements that have resulted."

Kurron was on the list of donors for the THE Foundation. They were also the recipient of an earlier contract worth $450,000. They are now the recipient of a "new" contract that entails they get to review their old contract. Talk about keeping it in the house.

I'm not a doctor nor in the medical field but even I know that in order to build a hospital you need to know what it's needed for in the first place. I'm confused. If this company's first contract was mean't to have been comprehensive enough to make the decions going forward then why go back to them to simply review the work already done? Where's the competition? Or did the donation buy the contract?

[schooldaze on 24.11.06 at 16:18]

I never liked the fact that the PLP took the $2million from The Dutchman to pay off Alaska Hall's mortgage but at least the guy's lived here in Bermuda pushing twenty years

... and if the PLP's complete disassociation with the Dutchman in recent months are any indication as to how they treat $2m donors I would hate to see what $25k buys you!!

[Roly Poly on 24.11.06 at 17:21]

Politics costs money. For years the PLP complained that the UBP got the lion's share of donations due to its leaders' close association with the business community. Indeed, many have noted that the PLP began to gain traction when it downplayed some of its passion in favor of fundraising, with media reports of the party accepting substantial donations from John Deuss and John Jefferis.

Of course, American politics have shown that there's a slippery slope to political funding as examples of undue influence come to light time and time again.

Bermuda's discomfort grew when Doctor Brown was alleged to have accepted "pay-to-play" donations from potential government advisors at a lunch in Washington DC. Eyebrows have gone even higher with Premier Brown's presidential style fund raising event in January.

It's time to take this seriously. If we pay our politicians as if we were a large independent nation, then they should expect to be accountable.

1. The register of interests act that was passed a number of years ago is largely ignored by politicians, raising the prospect of conflict of interest. It needs to be enforced.

2. We need political finance reform, with political interests reporting the sources of their funding, as well as restrictions on donations by overseas entities as well as those who do business with the government. It simply makes sense.

This information should be public, and there should be criminal sanctions for non-compliance. That's the way that most advanced nations deal ensure honesty in government.

[Roly Poly on 24.11.06 at 17:47]

US law (FECA) prohibits foreign nationals (which includes both individuals and entities) from making political donations. Seems to be a good start for Bermuda. Note this allows the local operations of international entities to donate.

(a) Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for— (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make— (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 304(f)(3)) (2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(3)); or (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

Moreover, US law restricts the ability of entities that are performing contracts for the government to make political donations.

(a) Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any person— (1) Who enters into any contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof either for the rendition of personal services or furnishing any material, supplies, or equip ment to the United States or any department or agency thereof or for selling any land or building to the United States or any department or agency thereof, if payment for the performance of such contract or payment for such material, supplies, equipment, land, or building is to be made in whole or in part from funds appropriated by the Congress, at any time between the com mencement of negotiations for the later of (A) the comple tion of performance under; or (B) the termination of negotiations for, such contract or furnishing of material, supplies, equipment, land, or buildings, directly or indirectly to make any contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use; or (2) knowingly to solicit any such contribution from any such person for any such purpose during any such period.

Bermuda is ignoring these two sensible practices.

[SmokingGun on 24.11.06 at 19:50]

Um Um - I just checked out Kurron's web-site. Is our hospital close to going bankrupt? Because that seems to be the forte that this company specializes in. I didn't see too much about the in-depth research and comprehensive studying of Bermuda's over-all healthcare needs leading up to the how, where, when, why and how much for our hospital. In fact the latest news release they have posted on their web-site dates back to September 20th, 2004. Not exactly "current" if you ax me.

[SmokingGun on 24.11.06 at 20:41]

More proof that this is big stuff in the states:

"New campaign financing system moving ahead for next elections
By Susan Haigh, AP Political Writer | November 24, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. --State election officials are preparing to roll out a series of campaign finance and election reforms enacted after the 2004 scandal that prompted Gov. John G. Rowland to resign amid a corruption probe.

The new system to finance political campaigns and limit the influence of special interests on future elections stems from reform laws approved by the General Assembly in 2005 and last May. Some parts of the program are ready to take effect in January, according to a recent commission report to state legislators.

"All things considered, I'm pleased at the progress we've made," said Jeffrey Garfield, executive director and general counsel of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, which is overseeing the far-reaching changes. "We've got a lot more to do, obviously, but we're moving forward in the right direction."

Connecticut enacted some of the strictest rules in the country after Rowland resigned in 2004 amid a corruption scandal. The three-term Republican acknowledged accepting gifts from state contractors and his employees and ultimately served 10 months in a federal prison camp after pleading guilty to a corruption charge.

In January, the public should be able to use their computers to scroll through lists of political action committees controlled by lobbyists as well as information about state contractors and their families. The new law bans contributions from the contractors and their immediate families, and places major restrictions on PAC contributions.

Bans on state contractor and lobbyist contributions are scheduled to begin Dec. 31. They are being challenged in federal court as unconstitutional, but the first hearing is not expected until March.
"We're moving along, as we should, to implement the law and we presume it's constitutional and we will defend it with the attorney general," Garfield said.

The hallmark of the new system, a publicly funded Citizens Election Fund to help finance candidates who volunteer to participate, will begin with the 2008 election cycle for legislative candidates. Statewide candidates, such as governor, would then participate in 2010. The state is depositing about $15 million into the account each year.

The commission, however, is preparing for the 2007 election in case a vacancy develops in the legislature and a replacement must be elected. A special meeting is scheduled for Nov. 29 to consider proposed regulations for the 2007 public financing program.
State lawmakers like what they've seen so far with the transformation of Connecticut's campaign financing system.

"They've had to really develop an entirely new department from the ground up, and they've done a remarkable job," Rep. Livvy R. Floren, R-Greenwich, the ranking Republican on the Government Administration and Elections Commission told the Journal Inquirer of Manchester. "I think the progress has been tremendous, frankly far beyond my expectations," Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, co-chairman of the GAE Committee, told AP. "I think the commission took it extremely seriously, right from the beginning once the bill passed, they began to flesh out the details needed."

The commission will likely seek additional support from the legislature when lawmakers return to the Capitol on Jan. 3. Garfield said additional funds are needed to hire more staff to investigate whether politicians are complying with the new rules. "With the new laws, we're anticipating more complaints and the need for more enforcement," Garfield said.

The commission also hopes the legislature will grant the agency authority to sanction contractors who fail to provide information about themselves, spouses and immediate dependents for the new registry. Some contractors have been reluctant to provide the information, citing privacy concerns."

Maybe Bermuda's government should contact the State of Connecticut and ask if we can have a copy of their play-book. If I were living in the US (Connecticut in particular) I'm not sure I'd want to expose myself to a potential conflict of interest by donating to a political party in Bermuda especially if I may be looking to do business on or off the island.

[FCPA on 24.11.06 at 22:23]

American business donors should be aware of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which prohibits any payment or gift intended to influence any act or decision of a foreign official in their official capacity, to induce the official to do or omit to do any act in violation of their lawful duty, to obtain any improper advantage, or to induce a foreign official to use their influence improperly to affect or influence any act or decision.

And indeed, section 111 of the Bermuda Criminal Code addresses the very same issues.

Doc Hollywood is walking a fine line, and he knows it. He is counting on the lethargy of the Bermudian people to let him get away with it.

[Tiger Bay on 27.11.06 at 09:09]

Canada also has laws covering political finance.

With some minor exceptions, only individuals (citizens and permanent residents) may make contributions to parties and/or candidates subject to an annual limit of $5,000 in total.

Corporations, trade unions, and associations are prohibited from making political contributions.

Parties and candidates must report their fund raising and expenditures, which become a public record.

Most developed countries have this type of law; Bermuda could use some accountability.

[Tiger Bay on 27.11.06 at 09:40]

The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) has compiled a matrix of countries' regulation of political funding.

http://www.idea.int/publications/funding_parties/upload/matrix.pdf

64% of countries have political finance laws. 53% require political parties and candidates to disclose the sources of their donations. 55% ban certain types of donations (such as from government contractors or overseas interests).

[The Christian Fist of Gratitude on 27.11.06 at 13:25]

Tiger

very valid point - there also a myriad of "self-policed" rules in the US & UK that expressly prohibit accepting donations to personally rather that to PACs or constituency accounts. Taking a sweetener made out to "Dr Jehovah Blue" would land you either being expelled from your party or looking at a nice stretch in club fed depending on your locale...

[Tiger Bay on 27.11.06 at 20:23]

So does the ringing silence here mean that you all agree that political finance reform is needed in Bermuda?

I am embarrassed at how weak Bermuda's rules are in this area.

[Ali on 28.11.06 at 11:23]

I agree with J. Starling, ban all donations to political parties and stop Dr. Brown in his tracks right now. Then go back and have a proper enquiry on the previous pay to play scandal. This all smells so bad I'm getting nauseous.

[SmokingGun on 11.12.06 at 13:17]

From the MO: Gregory Slayton, US Consul to Bermuda.

"And he praised the Premier for "upholding the highest ethical standards for his government"

"It's our understanding that under Bermuda law political parties are allowed to approach non-Bermudians and all types of businesses to garner financial support for their political efforts," Mr. Slayton said.
"At the same time I am 100 per cent sure that my friend Dr. Brown appreciates the importance of ethical and wise leadership – and is committed to providing just that for Bermuda.

I am confident that he is merely trying to work within Bermuda law to help his party. At the same time I know that he is firmly committed to maintaining Bermuda's sterling reputation in the world."

All I can say is: "Slayton, put a lid on it."

[A Meringue on 11.12.06 at 14:11]

Smoking Gun,

Exactly. Why is it against the law in America but perfectly ok in Bermuda? I think it’s what he didn’t say that was important. This was “diplomat-speak” for “Dr. Brown, we’ll be watching you. Don’t make us have to eat our words.”

[SmokingGun on 11.12.06 at 14:27]

A Meringue - I certainly hope that's the implication. When word starts getting back to certain people in the US they are going to use it for all it's worth to point out that not only are US tax payers missing out on tax revenues but there are a host of people sending money down and trying to write that off as well just so a few can get the sweet-heart deals.

Americans are getting sick and tired of having their Government meddling in everyone elses affairs and having the US ending up looking like chumps. Slayton should be very sensitive to that.

[gobsmacked on 11.12.06 at 16:12]

Not at all AM - this is just the US consul being his usual toadying little self - some major sucking up going on here. My impression of the guys is he is a terrible name dropper - ever listen to him speak on the news - my friend the President/vice president/under secretary of this and that................

And that bl**dy cap - will someone please burn the thing!!!

[jake on 11.12.06 at 18:15]

Please try to moderate your hatred of Brown and all things PLP and have a fair view of Gregory Slayton.

Need we burn him at the stake too?

Anyone else? If Mother Theresa stumbles and Brown catches her, does that make her a fraud as well?

[JJ on 12.12.06 at 07:17]

Bad example Jake. I think there's a lot of evidence that suggests that she actually was.

[loki on 12.12.06 at 07:40]

"If Mother Theresa stumbles and Brown catches her, does that make her a fraud as well?"

Actually, jake, yes; do some research on Mother Theresa and you'll see that she was, indeed, a fraud and not the kind-hearted, selfless person that she portrayed. And, no, I'm not being ironic.

[SmokingGun on 12.12.06 at 11:43]

jake - just for the record - I for one don't hate Brown - yet. I have a serious concern and in some cases detest for some of his beliefs, policies and shenanigans. On the one hand Bermuda can use a man like him for his intelligence, energy and yes even charm but I certainly do not think he should be given full rein. We need someone who can stand up to him toe to toe and bring the best out of him and when he's out of line force him to back down and place nice. If or when we start to see the ramifications of Brown's ugly, arrogant and conniving ways start creating the division, distrust and fear amongst the races - then yes I will certainly hate him for causing it.

But why in the world would I hate Gregory Slayton? I just think he should be very careful as to what he presents politically to the people of Bermuda - after all, isn't he just another white ex-pat on a term limit contract? ;-)

[SmokingGun on 13.12.06 at 17:14]

And after reading his letter to the RG I'm glad to see q:-) is 100% in agreement with me.

[SmokingGun on 16.12.06 at 15:55]

The following is from the Boston Globe online. I wonder if the Premier will publish a detailed list of donours to his Gala Ball. And if he'll refuse donations from certain industries.

Patrick pays self back as funds raised for inaugural
Part of $348,000 loan to campaign repaid
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff | December 16, 2006

As he was turning to corporate interests to pay for his inaugural, Governor-elect Deval Patrick's political committee gave him $200,000 to repay a personal loan he had made to his campaign in early 2005. Campaign finance records show that the payment was made Nov. 21, just as Patrick and his staff were developing plans for a five-day inaugural celebration in the first week of January. The events, which will be held across the state, will cost well over $1 million. A large portion of the funds will come from corporate donors and individuals.

Patrick's campaign manager, John Walsh, said the governor-elect's transition team rejected the idea that Patrick -- rather than re paying himself -- should have dipped into his campaign treasury to help defray the costs of the inaugural events. "I don't think it is a good way to pay for the inauguration," Walsh said.
"The campaign raised money to win the election," he said. "At the end of the day, we repaid all our debts, and that included the loan from Deval Patrick. I was proud as campaign manager we could do that."
Walsh said that he, not Patrick, decided to pay off part of the committee's debt to the governor-elect when it was clear after the election that the political account had a healthy surplus. In the past, incoming governors, such as Republican William F. Weld, have repaid themselves from their campaign accounts after winning election.
But using campaign funds to pay for inaugural celebrations is not unusual . The incoming New York governor, Eliot Spitzer, will use his political funds to pay for the festivities surrounding his swearing-in on Jan. 1. Spitzer's campaign account has a surplus of more than $5 million.

Patrick has come under fire for raising funds from corporate interests to help pay for the inauguration. The Common Cause of Massachusetts, an independent watch-dog group, said it was "deeply disappointed" with Patrick for his decision to seek corporate money. The group said the solicitations undercut Patrick's vow to change the political culture on Beacon Hill and give the appearance that he is indulging in "politics as usual."

His transition team has capped each corporate donation at $50,000 and said it will not accept donations from Big Dig contractors, tobacco companies, gaming corporations, or firearm companies. Once finalized, a list of the donations, those who raised them, and the corporate sponsors will be made public after the inauguration, Patrick aides said. His aides have rejected a request by the Globe that each donation be posted immediately after it is received.

After the $200,000 payment to Patrick, the governor-elect's campaign account reported a $48,942 balance as of Nov. 30. It reported receiving $151,210 in the last two weeks of November. Most of the funds came from donations that were part of the Democratic Party's fund - raising during the election. Money was harder to come by earlier in the campaign. Patrick, a political novice who had no public image or organization, had loaned his campaign $348,173, most of it in 2005.

State law caps repayments of loans made by candidates to their campaigns at $200,000. The statute was created by the Democratic-led Legislature in the mid-1990 s after then-Governor William F. Weld, who had loaned more than $1 million to his campaign in 1990, raised huge amounts from special interests and lobbyists, money that went directly through his committee into his pocket.

The Globe reported this week that Patrick is counting on a network of mostly political insiders, including lawyers and business people, to raise money for his inaugural committee.

[SmokingGun on 19.12.06 at 20:56]

I think this is what former premier Alex Scott was concerned about people thinking:

Associated Press:

"DUBLIN, Ireland - Former Prime Minister Charles Haughey received more than $15 million in secret payments and lied about his knowledge of the funds, according to an official report released Tuesday into Ireland's biggest political scandal.

The 704-page dossier by a fact-finding tribunal detailed the clandestine finances of Haughey, who served four scandal-marred terms as premier from 1979 to 1992 — then spent a decade battling probes into his mysterious wealth. Haughey, 80, died in June of prostate cancer.

Justice Michael Moriarty, who began investigating Haughey's financial empire in 1997, said the former prime minister's testimony had often been incredible and unbelievable. The judge said his report would have been released years ago had Haughey and his legal team not obstructed his efforts to identify the movement of Haughey's funds through third parties and offshore accounts.

Moriarty said Haughey's exploitation of his position to enrich himself was "unacceptable, wrong and must not be replicated."

The report provided a damning epitaph for Haughey, who rose to power in an Ireland burdened by double-digit unemployment and widespread poverty. While most politicians got by on a five-figure salary, Haughey solicited businessmen to fund a 280-acre estate, a private island and yacht, a helicopter business run by a son, and a jet-setting second life with a mistress.

Haughey received more than $15 million from more than two dozen sources, the investigation found.

The judge ruled that Haughey's most generous donor, department store baron Ben Dunne, received lobbying support from the prime minister in his company's successful battle to avoid paying a $64 million bill to Ireland's tax collection agency. Dunne admitted giving Haughey more than $2.6 million but denied getting anything but friendship in return.

Moriarty said Haughey received about $85,000 from a Saudi sheik in exchange for getting Irish passports for his relatives, although Haughey had claimed the money was for a racing horse he owned.

While Haughey entered office in 1979 owing Ireland's largest bank nearly $2 million, the judge noted most of the debt to was either paid by business friends or never repaid.

"Apart from the almost invariably secretive nature of payments from senior members of the business community, their very incidence and scale — particularly during difficult economic times nationally, and when governments led by Mr. Haughey were championing austerity — can only be said to have devalued the quality of a modern democracy," the report concluded.

Much public criticism focused on Haughey's decision to spend tens of thousands of dollars that he had raised to help his deputy prime minister, the late Brian Lenihan, cover medical bills for liver-transplant surgery.

The judge said Haughey's total "donations" from 1979 to 1996 represented 171 times the value of his prime ministerial salary and pension. He said the underground income would amount to about $60 million in today's prices.

Moriarty's probe, which has already cost taxpayers nearly $32.5 million, plans to release at least two more investigations next year into secret payments involving other Irish politicians and businessmen.

The current prime minister, Bertie Ahern, declined to comment on the report.

Ahern was a protege of Haughey in Fianna Fail, Ireland's long-dominant party. Ahern sought to distance himself from corrupt colleagues after he gained power in 1997 and, under opposition pressure, appointed Moriarty to investigate."

Bermuda could not afford a major scandal of this nature for a host of reasons. It's why it's most important that we get our books up to date and legislation on the books regarding fund-raising. Transparency is the only way we can honestly expect to build a solid foundation of trust for our future and our kid's future.