Campaign cycles don't last a million years; it only seems that way. In fact, it was only less than three months ago that the Times was getting killed for its front-page counterlede implying Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain had an affair with a telecom lobbyist. Does anyone remember this? I sure do.
In fact, the Times far outdid that story -- which, as I've said before, had questionable parts -- with two pieces the past two weeks that much better demonstrate McCain is not the patron saint of political ethics he claims to be.
The first, about Donald R. Diamond (is that really his given name?!), a big-time developer from McCain's homestate of Arizona, shows how McCain has supported several lucrative deals for Diamond over the years by sponsoring bills at the federal level and putting in the "good word" at the local level. (What quicker way to impress the mayor of Seaside, Calif., then a personal letter from McCain?) And, unsurprisingly, Diamond has bundled $250,000 for McCain's presidential bid, among other donations. The second is about how McCain's campaign appears to have paid far less than market value for plane travel ever since it starting using a jet owned by his wife's company. (For my underage readers: You have to be at least 21 years old to browse a beer distributor's Web site.)
McCain operates within the law in each instance, but these are not sparkling things to do if you champion yourself as a crusader of ethics. Perhaps in the first, one can argue everyone does favors for people they know -- that's what networking is -- but this involves publicly protected land, nice development deals and one person making lots and lots of money. On the second, using your wife's wealth to fund the campaign in a back-door approach is highly questionable. Why didn't either of these create stirs?
(Yes, Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts did the same four years ago and if he were running for president now or if I blogged back then, I would criticize just as hard. That Sen. Hillary Clinton appears to be on the verge of doing the same (did her $5 million loan to her campaign in February come from donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation, profits from Yucaipa Cos. and California supermarket magnate buddy Ron Burkle, or just from speaking and book deals?) is extremely disappointing. Why doesn't the Clinton Foundation disclose its donors? If you haven't read this Times story about former President Bill Clinton traveling to Kazakhstan with Vancouver mining magnate buddy Frank Giustra, helping him secure a huge deal, and then receiving a huge donation for the foundation -- all while proclaiming Kazakhstan is on the path to democracy?! -- you must.)
Anyway, at least Diamond is unapologetic about it all: ''I think that is what Congress people are supposed to do for constituents,'' he told the Times in an interview. ''When you have a big, significant businessman like myself, why wouldn't you want to help move things along? What else would they do? They waste so much time with legislation.''
Or, Why is Diamond so unapologetic about it all? Or, phrased more universally, Why are so many developers so self-centered? I've interviewed a lot of them -- no one of this repute, unfortunately -- and many are good people, who believe a development can transform a neighborhood and some who actually (whoa, stop the presses, here) think that people deserve to live in quality, affordable housing. But there are also so many who operate with a "Pave it Over, Move Mountains for Me" philosophy. Why?
2 comments:
Good to see you posting again after two weeks of Let's Go Mets. Let's Not Talk About Ace Starters and just be satisfied the Twins are the hottest team in baseball.
On the question of why developers are the way they are - might it be because there's virtually no space for them in a reasonable, constantly slowly changing, city [planning framework]? Thus, to justify their work to city councils and the like (and by extension for the big boys who devote their lives to their work, justify themselves), developers have to play the promoter and oversell the benefits of their proposed developments. At least that's one perspective from 3/4 of the way through one of the best books this casual participant in gentrification has ever read: http://www.amazon.com/Death-Life-Great-American-Cities/dp/067974195X
I think I need to read this book. And aren't the Dodgers the hottest team in baseball, thanks in part to the (let go) Mets?
Thanks for posting, buddy.
Post a Comment