The case of Arthur Winn is the latest example of everything that’s wrong with money in politics.
I’m sure most readers of this learned blog have heard of Arthur Winn — but to recap — Winn spent the better part of the last decade soliciting public and private funds and working to gain approval of a sprawling complex that was to be built upon “the air rights” above a section of the Mass Pike in between the Back Bay and the South End.
Everything was going according to plan, but when the real estate and credit markets tanked in 2007, the project fell through…
After the dust settled, Winn was charged with using “strawmen” to bribe all of our local political leaders — according to court records, he “reimbursed relatives he convinced to donate to his favored candidates, thus hiding the true source of the money.”
The list of local politicians that accepted Winn’s bribes is long and illustrious: Rep. Mike Capuano, Rep. Steven Lynch, former Governor Mitt Romney, Governor Deval Patrick, Senator John Kerry, Mayor Thomas Menino, Rep. Edward Markey, and state senator Dianne Wilkerson, just to name a few.
For his criminal efforts, Winn managed to secure over $60,000,000.00 in state and federal aid, and he was asking for lots more when the bubble finally burst!
Yesterday, at his “sentencing” hearing — the Prosecution asked that Winn be sent to jail for six months, for crimes that were “an affront to our democratic system” — but the federal judge ruled that Winn should not go to jail.
I would have been satisfied if he went to jail for six weeks. Heck, I would have been satisfied with six days. Anything to demonstrate that we take our democratic process somewhat seriously!
But, no. Instead, Winn will pay $100,000 in fines and walk free. Tonight we posted this item on the Occupy Boston facebook page — and one keen observer noted: “that’s just the cost of doing business.” I found that comment to be particularly ironic in light of the fact that yesterday, the Boston Globe broke this story not on the front page, not in the news section, not in the politics section, not even in the crime blotter, but rather, they broke it in the “Business Journal” section.
For Winn, that fine is no problem. “You can be sure it will be paid promptly,” Winn’s attorney told the judge.
Why does our media focus so much on the G.O.P. dog-and-pony show down in the state of Florida, when democracy itself is being bought and sold right here in our back yard?
Yesterday’s reporting offered no clue as to where Attorney General Martha Coakley’s investigation stands. Back in October, the Globe reported that Coakley was “looking into it.” Is the plan to wait until the statue of limitations expires completely? Or is there a conflict of interest when a politically-charged official such as the Attorney General is responsible for investigating wholesale corruption of the entire Massachusetts political establishment?
Yesterday’s case was in federal court and only pertained to Winn’s bribery of United States Reps. Mike Capuano and Steven Lynch; Winn has yet to be prosecuted for bribing state-level officials (although he’s admitted to doing that…)
Moreover, I am interested in the fact that the lead law firm on the Winn development — Goulston & Storrs — is also a major contributor to local politicians such as Rep. Mike Capuano and Sen. John Kerry. I haven’t seen that connection noted anywhere else, but a Coffee-Party friend recently provided this link with more background into Winn’s overall lobbying effort.
For me, the most troubling part of all of this is how Winn’s defense attorney explained why Winn should not be blamed: “Arthur did not know…the fact that what he was doing could have just as easily been accomplished legally had he known someone who knew how to navigate the system.”
In other words, Winn’s position is: there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with purchasing support from every politician in town and securing tens of millions of dollars in public money for your crazy project, as long as you hire someone to walk you through the legal technicalities of corrupting our democratic system.
A case can be made that the fine should have been heftier, but I’m OK with him not going to jail. IMO jail should be for those who are a threat to public safety.
Did the recipients of his roundabout donations know the true source? Should they be expected to know? Should the law really pry into the transfer of money among family? I’m not convinced of an affirmative answer to any of those.
Also, these two black politicians were corrupted, not active corruptors!
It really seems wrong that the pusher (Winn) does no time and the users who “bought” the small change were seduced (Wilkerson, Chuck) do time.
What Winn did threatens the very fabric of government – what Wilkerson and Turner did was merely succumb to taking money while in office. Without the Winns out there doing the Devil’s job of seduction, the “business as usual” of cash for access would not be happening.
Something is wrong with this picture. Thanks Mike.
…I don’t think Wilkerson and Turner belong in jail either, but their names also don’t belong anywhere near a ballot.
Why did you label them by their color? That strikes me as superfluous.
They were elected officials. They should be held to a higher standard.
I agree that they don’t belong in jail. What I disagree with is the idea that Winn should face equal punishment. I think elected officials getting caught accepting bribes does a lot more damage to the public trust than someone caught bribing officials through illegal contributions.
If you think that racism had nothing to do with the treatment of Diane Wilkerson and Chuck Turner, then I have a great deal for you on lifetime passes to the Cape Cod Tunnel.
Those who corrupt public officials are the ones who create the problem, like pushers to mere addicts. So I am going to continue to disagree with both of you (Christopher and Chris).
And the issue of disparate treatment/disparate impact is a dark thread in criminal justice, so I will disagree with you both on that one, as well.
I am in no way condoning dishonesty – nor business as usual as it is too often practiced on both Beacon Hill and Capitol Hill as you both know. I In fact, I think that congressman, senators, and staff should do hard time for the insider trading that is currently legal on hard time, and is no more than legalized bribery and legislating for profit.
But if no one was buying the honor and integrity of elected officials, I guess none of them could sell it – those who corrupt need to be deterred by harsh punishment to clean up the political landscape.
“The case of Arthur Winn is the latest example of everything that’s wrong with money in politics.”
It’s also an example of what’s wrong with having too much politics in development.
Yes, development should be thoughtfully regulated. Yes, politicians and community groups should have a strong say in the direction their neighborhoods will go. Our city is littered with the scars of places destroyed when they didn’t (see New York Streets -> Herald Traveler -> Ink Place?)
BUT – The pendulum has swung very far in the other direction. Development in Massachusetts is much, much more cumbersome than in most places. The opportunities for politicians and a few malcontent NIMBY-ites to derail good projects are too many and too potent. The dishonest among them are able to leverage it for personal gain or special agendas. Our city is also littered with the scars of absence and what might have been in too many places.
Arthur Winn’s actions were undeniably wrong. They were also understandable for a developer trying to achieve a truly city-building project in our political/regulatory climate.
Until we fix the development process and find that sweet spot of combining free market enterprise with community control, expect more of the same from both politicians and developers looking for the easy way through this mess.
Why does the frontpage version of this article say “promoted by amberpaw”? Why does that line not appear on the article’s individual page?
Maybe it means I was convincing “enough” in the thread that someone with that authority (which I do not have) promoted it to the front page. It belongs on the front page in my opinion though, for calling attention to hyprocracy in sentencing.
be tarred and feathered.
This post defames a lot of politicians who didn’t do anything wrong. I hate to be in the position of defending someone like Stephen Lynch (who’s done plenty of other despicable things in his life), but seriously. They didn’t know this money was coming from Winn. Arthur Winn is the bad guy here, and to an extent so are the people who helped him circumvent the campaign finance laws, although they may have been more cowardly than evil.
Based on this evidence, no one accepted any bribes. They accepted what looked to them like normal campaign contributions.
For the record, none of these politicians are accused of any criminal wrongdoing in the Arthur Winn case.
Your comment underscores the challenge of discussing these matters — because a “bribe” in the general sense of the word is not crime in the context of the American political system. So it’s natural for me to say “bribe” and it’s also fair for you to say that the politicians “didn’t do anything wrong.”
Nevertheless, I think it’s up to each of us to decide whether our system of campaign fiance is morally tenable…
In common parlance, the word bribe means: “to persuade someone to act in one’s favor (typically illegally or dishonestly), by a gift of money or other inducement.”
As we all know, our system of campaign fiance makes it perfectly legal to persuade a politician to act in one’s favor by a gift of money. Arthur Winn played this game harder than any other local affordable-housing developer, and he made many millions doing so…
Furthermore, we know that in this case, Arthur Winn hand-delivered “bundles” of large donations that appeared to be perfectly legal — but were actually illegal because he had secretly promised to reimburse some of the contributors to the bundle.
I agree with you that based on the evidence, none of these politicians had actual knowledge that they where breaking the law. Generally speaking, all these pols knew was that they were getting a steady supply of legal campaign cash with the expectation that they would help deliver discretionary housing-tax credits and historic rehabilitation tax credits.
I’m sure you are smart enough to be well aware of the connotations of the word “bribe,” especially when being used in connection with politicians.