Perceptions are too often the harbingers of stark reality. This
is especially true when it comes to questioning the ethics or illicit acts of
local government officials. While spending nearly 25 years in the FBI and
convicting a number of local, state, and federal officials on corruption
charges, it did not take long for my colleagues and I to learn how to spot
those who had crossed the bright line into unethical, and sometimes corrupt, behavior.
In most cases, worrisome perceptions had run rampant in the community that
something was wrong. For those of you who may not have knowingly experienced
such behavior in your own community, and for purposes of this article, let me
give you a quick homegrown lesson in what that malfeasance smells like.
Simply put, political corruption is the use of official power
by government officials for illegitimate personal gain. Unfortunately, there is
too often a laissez faire attitude among the honest leaders in the
community where perceptions of a problem are ignored or merely swept under the
rug. Those perceptions are often the by-products of cronyism, influence
peddling, bribery, or extortion. Common denominators usually found in that
cesspool were politicians who evinced haughty arrogance, claimed accomplishments
that were really not theirs to claim, were already chasing their next higher
office, and were suspiciously secretive in many of their political and/or
personal dealings. When challenged on any of these traits, they hurl unsupported
denials and vehement insults toward their inquiring constituents. Becoming mired
in their own subconscious self-perceptions of economic and societal preeminence,
some even began donning flashy and expensive clothes and lifestyles in efforts
to imply superiority over their work-a-day constituents. It normally did not
take long for the FBI to quickly discover an illicit or unethical nexus between
the politician’s official duties — or the neglect of same — and the community
perceptions of a serious problem with the official’s fair and unbiased service to
their constituents.
Criminal law requires a willing relationship between a
government official’s duties and a corrupt act such as, for example, a large
campaign donation intended to facilitate certain legislation or other official
act by that official to benefit a crony — in other words, a quid pro quo. Upon
close inspection by trained investigators, the proscribed relationship between
the official and the co-conspirator becomes apparent. It can also surface when
those plotting the scheme covertly agree to conceal their being symbiotically joined
at their hip pockets. In today’s electronic world of emails and high-speed
research, such concealment rarely lasts, and the act, or the perception of one,
pops to the surface at the most unexpected times, such as right before an
upcoming election. When challenged on such an apparency, they give diversionary
or evasive statements in an effort to conceal their conspiratorial union. Sound
familiar?