Italian newspapers have been filled with tales from the “Mafia Capitale” trial this month, as Massimo Carminati, a right-wing extremist with a criminal history, was sentenced to 28 years in prison for diverting millions of euros that had been designated for public services into the bank accounts of politicians and businessmen.

Among those accused is the former right-wing mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, who was in office when the majority of the bribery and extortion took place. Although the label “mafia” was quickly applied to Carminati, his accomplice Salvatore Buzzi, and 45 others who faced trial for their involvement in the scandal, their lawyers have been quick to push back against using the word as a catch-all phrase.

Giosuè Naso, one of Carminati’s lawyers, stated that “if everything is mafia, nothing is mafia” and argued that using that label detracts from law enforcement efforts against crime syndicates. In Italy, trials involving the mafia come with a different set of punitive measures as “mafia association” itself can be considered a crime. Judge Rosanna Ianniello ultimately decided Carminati and Buzzi were guilty of corruption, not mafia association, even though the state made an argument that the operation was mafia-like and that certain members of the group had ties to the ‘Ndrangheta, Calabria’s powerful mafia. Gianni Alemanno has also been cleared of mafia association charges but is still awaiting trial for corruption and illegal funding of his political party.

The city of Rome is currently in dire economic straits, having pulled out of its bid for the 2024 Olympics  last year because it simply did not have the funds to continue. The financial woes of the city are directly linked to Carminati and Buzzi, whose bribery and extortion racket pulled public funds from a host of civic projects–including public housing for refugees–and shifted the funds into private coffers. Carminati and Buzzi have been in prison for over two years under Italy’s infamous 41-bis prison regime, designed specifically for mafia detainees, but going forward they will be granted more relaxed conditions in prison for their multi-decade sentences.

The two men and their accomplices may have been cleared of mafia charges but it will take years to track down and redistribute the funds they stole. Although law enforcement forces are confident they have removed the crime ring from city hall, there may still be members who escaped the crackdown and will return to their bribery practices once public scrutiny is relaxed. In the meantime, Rome is struggling, overflowing with garbage, struggling to house its population and maintain its public spaces. After a harsh drought this summer, Rome is now considering rationing drinking water for the 1.5 million residents of the city. The Eternal City desperately needs funding and responsible leaders to make sure public funds are spent effectively and responsibly. Mayor Virginia Raggi holds relatively high popularity with Roman voters and her M5S party has framed itself as the “outsider” party, separate from the corruption of the past–yet as the infrastructure and public services of Rome deteriorate, she may see difficulties.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Mafia Capitale: The Line Between Government Corruption and Organized Crime? appeared first on Law Street.

There are few things more unsavory than manipulative gifts and bribes, especially when they are received by someone holding a public office. To protect against such foreign meddling and intrusion in American politics, the framers of the Constitution decided to embed language in the document strictly prohibiting such conduct. The Emoluments Clause was established to ensure the new government of America was insulated from corruption.

However, there is increasing concern among politicians and citizens that President-elect Donald Trump, with his vast corporation that has interests all over the world, will violate the Emoluments Clause when he steps into the office. Moreover, the President-elect will be in an extremely unique position; since he has not yet divested himself fully of his business holdings. He’s poised to make a profit as money comes into his privately-held corporation, the Trump Organization. Read on to learn more about the Emoluments Clause and these concerns.

What is the Emoluments Clause?

The framers of the Constitution were deeply afraid of foreign interference in the American political system, particularly after seeing its effects in Europe. Thus, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Emoluments Clause, prohibits any person “holding any Office of Profit or Trust” from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” Additionally, it prohibits the federal government from bestowing titles of nobility. Explicit congressional consent has the ability to validate these particular exchanges, otherwise these payments are strictly prohibited. In 1787, America was still a brand-new government, one highly vulnerable to manipulation by world powers; thus, those who gathered to construct the Constitution wanted to break from the corrupt practices of previous governments.

Generally, America’s Founding Fathers were very cognizant of how private financial interests could potentially sway even the most moral of leaders. Historical evidence has even suggested that some of our Founding Fathers saw the Emoluments Clause as a broad anti-corruption measure. While the basis of the clause was to reject gifts that pertained specifically to diplomacy, it was also deemed a way to reject any corruption or foreign influence.

Emoluments is a broad term, but the construction of it is meant to be as broad as possible. So, an emolument is any transaction between a federal officeholder and a foreign state, in which the benefits are inconsistent with a fair market exchange in an arms-length transaction. There is not a firm consensus in the community regarding the definition of the term, but arguably emoluments could cover ordinary, fair market value transactions that result in economic profit or benefit to the federal officeholder.

Foreign Interference in the U.S. Political System

There is substantial evidence that a foreign power interfered in the American political system during the 2016 presidential election. According to many on Capitol Hill, the CIA, and the White House, Russia actively attempted to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. This was accomplished via the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and other political arms of the Democratic Party, resulting in the release of thousands of emails.

Strictly prohibiting foreign government presents and emoluments, of any kind, is even more important for national security purposes. Mitigating conflicts of interest with foreign governments is of the utmost importance as America ushers in a new administration in 2017.

Trump, Conflicts of Interest, and Foreign Entanglements

President-elect Trump has diverse business interests on a global scale. Even after Trump takes his oath of office on January 20, 2017, he will still continue to receive steady streams of income from a vast array of entities and foreign powers. Trump’s continued interest in the Trump Organization, as well as his stake in hundreds of other entities, make him arguably the most entangled president-elect in conflicts of interest in American history. As one political ethics and compliance lawyer in Washington noted, any sort of business with a foreign corporation, whether it is owned in part or completely controlled by a foreign government, that benefits Trump could be a violation of the Emoluments Clause.

In the domestic arena alone, there are over ten cases challenging Trump’s labor practices that are pending before the National Labor Relations Board, with two vacancies to be filled by Trump himself. Moreover, the Internal Revenue Service auditing Trump will soon pick its new chief. Trump will become both the landlord and tenant of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., and he is now responsible for picking the new Treasury Secretary while owing several hundred million dollars to banks.

On the global scale, Trump has business holdings all over the world. While many transactions may not involve a bit of impropriety, it is still highly possible that they have the ability to cause blurred lines. Moreover, Trump has consistently declined to make his business dealings transparent, enshrouding the full extent of potential issues with his businesses in secrecy.

The full extent of his businesses, which include real estate, clothing, jewelry, golf courses, and much more, give rise to a variety of ethical considerations. When Ivanka Trump appeared on “60 Minutes” in November 2016, the business took advantage of a potential marketing opportunity by urging reporters to write about the $10,800 gold bangle bracelet she wore during the interview. Furthermore, Trump’s sons and their Texas nonprofit organization came under fire in December 2016 for soliciting million-dollar donations for unnamed “conservation” charities in exchange for access to Trump during inauguration weekend. Eric Trump stopped fundraising for his charity, which raised money for childhood cancer, after the foundation came under scrutiny for posting an online auction for coffee with Ivanka.

There are a lot of questions about how Trump’s businesses will function while he is in office. Currently, all Trump has identified is that he would leave his businesses before inauguration, leaving his children, Don and Eric, to manage them. He has also commented that no new deals will be done during his term(s) in office.

Does the Emoluments Clause Even Apply to the President?

Some scholars contend that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to the President. Many point out that there’s no real case law or precedent as to how courts could interpret the clause. But throughout American history, U.S. presidents have acted as though it does apply to them. There is evidence that at least one president, however, did not follow the Emoluments Clause. President George Washington, during his time in office, received gifts from both the French ambassador to the U.S. as well as the Marquis de Lafayette. Scholars also dispute whether the clause applies to a specific kind of payment, such as a gratuity or a gift, or if all types of payments are subject to the clause. Additionally, there is disagreement over whether the payment must be favorable or any fair market payment.

“Trump Vodka” Courtesy of Michael Lehet : License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

The Congressional Research Service has also noted that the Emoluments Clause is one of a few ethics statutes that potentially apply to the president. However, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel specifically affirmed in 2009–when President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize–that the president holds an “Office of Profit or Trust.” Moreover, the Constitution explicitly refers to the president as holding an “Office.” A record going back even before the OLC and DOJ further shows a litany of government lawyers and previous presidents applying the clause to the presidency.

Trump, as a business man, is navigating in uncharted territory with his position in the Trump Organization. It is unprecedented that payments going to a corporation will eventually materialize as a profit for Trump. Since the business is a privately-held corporation, it is essentially an extension of Trump; conversely, if the Trump Organization were a publicly-held corporation, such questions would likely not arise even if potential conflicts of interest could still exist.

Potential Legislation to Force Trump to Divest His Empire

Some in Washington are extremely concerned about foreign influence and conflicts of interest in American politics because of Trump’s businesses. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has promised that she and four other Democratic senators will introduce a bill to implement and enforce the Emoluments Clause in January 2017. Such a bill, if passed, would force Trump to divest himself of his empire, placing his assets in a true blind trust.

A true blind trust would likely mean no involvement in his businesses from any of his family members, Don and Eric included. It would require a completely independent manager, not closely tied to the holder, to run the business. Presidents are certainly held to a higher standard than other Americans. Considering Trump’s platform was to root out corruption in Washington, his critics argue that divesting himself of the Trump Organization may be in the best interest for the country.

Conclusion

Despite these concerns, Trump has demonstrated no real intent to divest himself fully from his business interests once he steps into the White House. If the bill presented by Senator Warren and other supporters is passed, then Trump’s current plans may drastically change. One thing is quite clear: Trump, a billionaire with business holdings all over the globe, may find himself knee-deep in many conflicts of interest. Maintaining a presidency free from bribery, corruption, and self-motivated profits is absolutely critical, just as the Constitutional Convention intended.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Could the Emoluments Clause Affect Donald Trump? appeared first on Law Street.

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Corruption: McDonnell v. United States

The decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously to overturn corruption convictions of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife. However, there is still a possibility that they can be retried under the court’s new interpretation of the law.

What corruption charges?

In 2014, McDonnell and his wife were convicted on federal bribery charges. He received luxury gifts and financial benefits from Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams in exchange for what prosecutors deemed “government favors” or “official acts.” In total, the gifts and benefits that the McDonnells received were worth more than $175,000–including a Rolex watch, catering their daughter’s wedding, and a $20,000 shopping trip for Mrs. McDonnell.

“There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

What does this mean for the future of political bribery?

This case was centered around the question of what constitutes an “official act” under federal law. McDonnell arranged meetings between Williams and state officials in the form of a luncheon thrown at the Governor’s Mansion with a guest list consisting of healthcare leaders. Williams is the chief executive of Star Scientific, a tobacco-based dietary supplement company, and he wanted state universities to perform research on his product.

McDonnell said he never made an official act in favor of Williams or his business, which left the justices searching for where to draw the line between a politician’s regular activities and ones that violate corruption laws. A bipartisan group of officials wrote an amicus brief for the case, arguing that if McDonnell’s convictions were upheld, it would criminalize routine favors that politicians do for donors.

To avoid confusion in the future, Chief Justice John Roberts created a clearer definition of an “official act:”

“In sum, an ‘official act’ is a decision or action on a ‘question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” Roberts wrote. “Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so)–without more–does not fit that definition of an official act.”

Read the full opinion here.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Overturns Former Virginia Governor’s Corruption Conviction appeared first on Law Street.

Recently re-elected FIFA president Joseph S. Blatter, known to the world as Swiss Sepp Blatter, announced Tuesday he will step down from his post as president of the international football association’s governing body, following criticism over a corruption scandal.

While 14 of his colleagues were recently indicted on charges of bribery, money laundering, and racketeering, Blatter was left unscathed and re-elected for his fifth consecutive term as FIFA president on Friday, May 29^th. During his reelection speech, Blatter rejoiced in his continued reign with the words,

I thank you, you have accepted me for the next four years. I will be in command of this boat called FIFA.

 

However, Blatter has not escaped blame from the global public over the years, having been labeled a dictator, among other names, and accused of sexism and racism reaching far beyond claims of corrupt laundering practices. According to BBC News, the global citizens’ movement Avaaz was responsible for starting the #BlatterOut campaign, which began trending on Twitter just days before the election. Gary Linekar, the former English footballer and current sports broadcaster, is one of the many to join the campaign against Blatter, who seems to have been at the head of FIFA corruption since 1991.

FIFA members should vote for the good of football, and get rid of a man who’s reigned over a corrupt organisation for too long. #BlatterOut

— Gary Lineker (@GaryLineker) May 28, 2015

So what on earth was keeping Blatter in power if so much of the world wanted #BlatterOut? The answer, unlike what most commonly believe, is not so much about the power of the dollar—or the supposed tens of millions of dollars involved in the corruption since 1991—as it is the power of a single vote in any given FIFA presidential election. Each of the 209 national member associations that make up FIFA’s Congress receives exactly one equal vote no matter how much land area the nation possesses or how much of the world’s population lives in each nation. According to the Washington Post, this means the tiny Caribbean island of Montserrat has as much a say as World Cup powerhouses Brazil or Germany in the election. After totaling the member nations counted in the presidential election, here is the breakdown by regional confederation:

So, what Blatter needed to do to get reelected was not to convince the world that he is not as corrupt as his colleagues, but to cater to the areas of the world that would ensure his victory, and he did. Blatter has made what was once a largely European organization a globalized organization, by bringing what he calls “developmental programs” to underprivileged parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Despite where the money came from to start these programs, in doing so, Blatter spoke for most of the 54 votes of the Confederation of African Football (CAF)—the largest number of votes held by any of the six continental confederations above. Amaju Pinnick, the current president of the Nigerian Football Federation, has expressed that,

Without Blatter we wouldn’t enjoy all the benefits we enjoy today from FIFA. What Blatter pushes is equity, fairness and equality among the nations. We don’t want to experiment.

It was not Blatter’s years of experience or money that got him reelected; it was his ability to systematically accommodate the parts of the world that hold the most votes.

The sole person who opposed Blatter in the election for president was Qatari Mohammed bin Hammam, but he withdrew from the race after suspension by FIFA’s ethics committee due to allegations that he offered financial incentives to Caribbean Football Union members. The response to corruption by England’s Football Association and its chairman David Bernstein was to postpone the election, to instill credibility back into the process, and to appoint an independent external committee to make recommendations about future election processes. Yet, the FA’s proposal was again put up to the votes of 206 member nations equally and the election moved forward without delay.

Are Blatter’s or any other FIFA administrator’s corrupt practices inevitable in this day and age of soccer as yet another means of politics? Or is Blatter’s attempt to globalize the world by bringing soccer and developmental programs to countries outside of Europe a kind of affirmative action policy that permits or even necessitates some corruption behind the scenes? Whether you answer yes or no to these questions, FIFA’s Executive Committee might consider an election reform of proportional representation by member nations in order to assure that the next FIFA president elected is preferred in power by all parts of the world instead of only by the continent with the most votes.

Jenifer Carter

Jenifer Carter is a member of the University of Virginia Class of 2016. Contact Jenifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversial Re-election Forces FIFA President to Resign appeared first on Law Street.

As soccer fans around the globe eagerly tune in to the FIFA World Cup in Brazil, it is important to take a hard look at the world’s most beloved tournament and its impact on the host countries. It may initially seem that host country selection is a tremendous honor and will result in an economic boom; however, systemic corruption and bribery suggest that not all money is good money.

The Benefits and Impacts of Hosting

Following the announcement on October 30, 2001 that Brazil would be the Host Nation of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, the developing country was propelled into a state of pride and eager anticipation. Five-time world champions and birthplace to an abundance of soccer legends such as Pelé and Ronaldinho, Brazil initially viewed hosting the 20th World Cup as an honor. The sport is not only revered at a near religious sacredness in Brazil, but additionally, the perceived economic benefits would be tantalizing for any nation.

Tourism

• The final match of the 2010 World Cup between Spain and the Netherlands drew in at least 1 billion viewers, with the 2014 games expecting to surpass that number.
• 3.7 million tourists will descend upon the country during the tournament’s four-week run.
• A projected $11.1 billion will be spent on hotels, airlines, advertising, and various other expenditures.

Job Creation

• Brazil estimates that 380,000 jobs were created because of the World Cup.

The preliminary sense of privilege, however, began to wear away as obstacles continued to emerge and speculation of Brazil’s inability to host the tournament could not be alleviated.

World Cup 2014: Brazil

How is it Financed?

The country’s original plan claimed that private donors would finance the development and renovation of stadiums. Much to the dismay of Brazilians, this plan has greatly diverted. According to The Wall Street Journal’s John Lyons and Loretta Chao, taxpayers have paid $3.6 billion for the stadiums. São Paulo will be the arena for the opening game, a brand new stadium with 62,000 seats that came with a  $550 million price tag. The stadium will go to the Corinthians soccer team after the Cup, but since the team was unable to provide enough private lenders, the stadium’s financing ended up coming from $200 million in tax breaks and government loans. The 2014 World Cup has accumulated a cost of $11.5 billion, which is twice the amount of the previous two World Cups in South Africa and Germany.

Reported by the Pew Research Center, 72 percent of Brazilians are dissatisfied with the way things are going in their country. Additionally, 61 percent of citizens believe hosting the event has been damaging for Brazil because it takes funding away from schools, heath care, and other public services.

Location

Manaus Stadium is another example of poor planning. The 39,000-seat stadium was constructed in the capital city in the state of Amazonas while its greatest local games scarcely attract 1,500 spectators. Since the city lacks a notable soccer team, the stadium will be rendered useless after the Cup — a significant reason as to why private lenders once again did not contribute and the blunt of the cost fell on to the citizens.

Corruption

Following the historical trend, many corruption allegations have surfaced in the lead up to this year’s World Cup. One such example, according to a report by a city auditor, is that the cost to build a stadium in Brasília was $636 million, a 68 percent increase compared to the initial projected cost. Andrade Gutierrez S.A., the builder of the stadium, chose not to comment on the “grave irregularities” found in the report. These abnormalities, such as transportation being over-billed and a 12.1 percent loss rate on steel, were a source of the distended budget.

With $4 billion spent on stadiums and an insufficient amount of funds allocated to public services, the people of Brazil have taken to strikes and protest to promote their needs.

Civil unrest

Movimento Passe Livre (Free Fare Movement), which advocates for free public transportation, gained attention on June 13, 2013 when police turned a peaceful protest into a place of terror. Officers fired rubber bullets and firing grenades at bystanders and fleeing protesters. Those who were trapped in the mayhem were subjected to inhaling pepper spray and tear gas. The movement quickly spread across a dozen state capitals. These protests occurred simultaneously with the Confederations Cup matches. BBC Sport’s Ben Smith reported that throughout the June 6, 2013 match between Uruguay and Nigeria, “the deep rumblings, loud bangs and the crackle of police weapons could be heard in the streets nearby,” leaving many with questions if the social problems Brazil is facing would hinder its ability to host the Cup a year later.

Subway Strikes

Close to the opening ceremonies, subway strikes erupted in Sao Paulo. Approximately four million people a day use the subway. The workers hoped that the strike would lead to increase in pay and better working conditions; however, the São Paulo court ruled that striking over pay was illegal.

The Homeless Demand Answers

In May 2014, the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem-Teto (Homeless Workers’ Movement, or MTST) and the Fronte de Resistência Urbana (Urban Resistance Front) — both organizations representing homeless citizens — protested 20,000 strong in São Paulo. The protesters demanded answers about how the government spent public funds on the World Cup. The protesters were able to garner international attention and disrupt traffic for more than 150 miles.

World Cup 2010: South Africa

Match fixing

The New York Times‘ Declan Hill and Jeré Longman investigated incidents of match fixing that took place in five exhibition matches during the South Africa 2010 World Cup. Football 4U International was the Singapore-based company that arranged the match rigging.

“At least five matches and possibly more” were manipulated, while “as many as 15 matches were targets.” The exhibition matches were exploited for betting purposes, especially in underground Asian markets. In a report obtained by The New York Times, it is estimated that the illegal betting markets in Asia total hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Football 4U International

The South Africa-Guatemala friendly was one of the matches fixed by Football 4U International. Ibrahim Chaibou was the referee supplied for that game, receiving $60,000 for manipulating a 5-0 South African victory.

Steve Goddard, the acting head of refereeing for the South African Football Association at the time of the 2010 World Cup, was offered a bribe by Football 4U International executive Wilson Raj Perumal. The bribe of $3,500 was for the organization to supply referees for the exhibition matches.

These revelations have spurred FIFA to work closely with law enforcement officials to patrol potential match fixing during the 2014 games.

World Cup 2022: Qatar

Appalling Living and Working Conditions

While Brazil’s hosting capability has been in question, it is nearly unanimous that Qatar hosting the World Cup in 2022 is a treacherous affair. In an interview with Swiss broadcaster RTS about if choosing Qatar to host in 2022 was a mistake, Sepp Blatter, FIFA’s president, said “Yes, it was a mistake of course, but one makes lots of mistakes in life.” Journalists, fans, and officials directly connected to FIFA are calling for a new vote if it is confirmed that Qatar won because of a corrupt system. The BBC reported that Football Association chairman Greg Dyke would support a new vote.

In an interview with ESPN published June 1, 2014, Sharan Burrow of the International Union Confederation (ITUC) was asked, “How do Qataris view the people who are there building this vast infrastructure for a country with only 200,000 citizens?” Her response came as a chilling summation of the hostility,  “I don’t think they see them as human.”

Reported by Richard Conway of BBC, “Almost 200 Nepalese men are reported to have died last year working on construction projects in Qatar,” and “up to 4,000 workers could die by 2022 if current laws and attitudes persist.”

According to the ITUC Special Report “The Case Against Qatar:”

• Employers are demanding deposits of $275 paid by workers before they are allowed to leave for holidays.
• 191 Nepalese workers died in 2013 and 169 in 2012.
• 218 Indian nationals died in 2013, 237 died in 2012 and 239 in 2011.
• On average 20 Indian migrants died per month in 2013.

Qatar follows a ‘kefala’ employment system, which ties migrant workers to their sponsor companies. Human rights groups and trade unions are highly critical of this system as it requires exit visas that do not allow workers to leave without their employer’s permission.

With eight years left until Qatar is set to host the World Cup, these numbers are frightening to both human rights activists and soccer spectators.

How Bribery Gave Qatar the World Cup

In addition to the current welfare of the workers, allegations that Qatar won the bid due to fraudulent measures have also surfaced. Qatar’s former top football official, Mohamed Bin Hammam, stands at the center of it all.

• The Sunday Times obtained numerous leaked e-mails stating how bin Hammam paid off and lobbied numerous senior officials to support Qatar’s bid.
• According to Mike Singer of CBS, “Regarding former FIFA VP Jack Warner, Bin Hammam was accused of paying him more than $1.6 million in order to garner his support. Warner eventually resigned in 2011 to avoid an investigation connected to Bin Hammam’s failed attempt to become FIFA president.“
• Bin Hammam is also said to have paid up to $200,000 to multiple African soccer associations through ten slush funds in his company. In turn for receiving the money, the associations persuaded the top four FIFA officials in Africa to vote how Bin Hammam desired.

Corruption is nothing new to Bin Hammam as he has been banned for life by FIFA twice. In 2012 following a natural gas deal with Thailand (home to Worawi Makudi who is a FIFA board ally), Bin Hammam was expelled based on financial wrongdoing. Supplementing the public’s disdain for how events are transpiring thus far in Qatar, FIFA’s top sponsors have vocalized their displeasure. Visa has requested FIFA to “maintain strong ethical standards and operate with transparency.” Adidas, FIFA’s longest-standing sponsor and ball provider for the World Cup said, “The negative tenor of the public debate around FIFA at the moment is neither good for football nor for FIFA and its partners.” Meeting opposition by six of FIFA’s sponsors — who will pay $700 million collectively over four years toward the 2014 games — are sure to influence how FIFA handles the situation.

Resources

Primary 

The New York Times: Referees Exchange Letter 

Additional

International Trade Union Confederation: “The Case Against Qatar”

FIFA: Brazil Confirmed as 2014 Hosts

Wall Street Journal: Hopes Fades in Brazil for a World Cup Economic Boost

Soccerly: World Cup Expected to Bring 3.7 Million Tourist Invasion

Pew Research Center: Brazilian Discontent Ahead of World Cup

Wall Street Journal: São Paulo Subway Workers to Strike

International Business Times: No to the Cup: Homeless Workers’ Association Leads 20,000 People in Sao Paulo to Demonstrate Against World Cup Costs

The New York Times: Fixed Soccer Matches Cast Shadow Over World Cup

Economist: The Streets Erupt

BBC: Qatar World Cup 2022: FIFA Vice-President ‘Would Support’ Re-Vote

ESPN : Qatar’s World Cup

BBC: Qatar 2022: Plans to Protect World Cup Workers Unveiled

CBS: Report: Former FIFA Exec Paid $5 Million to Support Qatar WC Bid

Guardian: World Cup 2014: Brazil Still Facing Issues With 100 Days to Go 

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post The Dark Side of the World Cup: Corruption, Bribery, and Civil Unrest appeared first on Law Street.

You know what I find hilarious? Incompetence. Seriously, it’s one of my favorite things. Especially when it’s political incompetence. Although to be fair, I probably only find it funny because it keeps me from getting too depressed over the current state of American politics. Are y’all curious as to what my favorite political incompetence moment was this week? Well, it was the incident where Virginia Republicans bribed a Democratic state senator by offering jobs to him and his daughter. By doing so, they gained a majority in the Virginia State Senate. Getting that majority may mean that the attempted Medicaid expansion that Gov. Terry McAuliffe has been working on will be derailed. Confused? Me too. There’s a lot going on here. This issue has a bunch of layers. More specifically, a bunch of layers of incompetence. Let’s break them down.

The Incompetence of Phillip “Sure I’ll Accept a Bribe” Puckett

Let’s work from the inside out. In this case, this first layer of incompetence involves now-resigned Senator Phillip “sure I’ll accept a bribe” Puckett. A Democrat from southwestern Virginia’s Russell County, Puckett received an interesting offer from members of the Virginia GOP. According to inside sources, Puckett was in consideration for a job as Deputy Director of the State Tobacco Commission and his daughter has been waiting around to be confirmed to a federal judgeship. The deal, allegedly, was that they would finally get approved if Puckett resigned. So…he resigned.

Although much-deserved backlash has led to Puckett’s announcement that he won’t be seeking the Tobacco Commission job, it seems that his daughter will get her appointment after all. And the Republicans will get what they wanted — Democrats won’t control the Virginia Senate, which likely means that Medicaid expansion in the state is dead. If this is all true, which it seems to be, I have just a few words for Puckett.

Sounds about right. Because if Puckett did take a bribe to leave his elected position as a state senator, he is a selfish bastard. People elected him based on his beliefs. And when you’re elected by the people…well then you work for the people. That means those voters are counting on you. That means that you probably shouldn’t let them down over your own selfish desires. If you wanted a job that you could leave without letting people down, you probably shouldn’t have become a public servant. Maybe Puckett left for some other reason; it does happen. But it’s still a crap move. Because at the end of the day he let down people who count on him.

And on the issue of Medicaid expansion, there were a ton of people who desperately could have used his help. As the Washington Post pointed out, there are about 3,000 of his constituents who have no health insurance. People who could have had their lives changed by Medicaid expansion. Puckett owes every single one of them a damn apology.

The Incompetence of the Virginia GOP

This award goes to the Republicans who bribed him — although incompetence is probably not the right word, because their plan did actually work. Instead, let’s call it nastiness. This is not our political process. Our political process relies on everyone going out and voting. And then after we’ve voted we have elected officials, and hypothetically we’re done there. We do this cool thing where we get to vote them out if we want to, we just need to let them serve out the term first. In some places, we can even recall our elected officials.

You know what we can’t do? Be giant babies and bribe them. I mean I guess we can, because Virginia Republicans just did. But we shouldn’t. It’s cheap, it’s obnoxious, it’s immature. And guess what? It’s also wrong.

The Incompetence of Everyone Who Doesn’t Value Compromise

And that brings me to our last layer of incompetence. It’s a big one. A huge one, actually. Because it’s all of us.

Yup, you. All of you. And me too, if we’re being fair. Without sounding prematurely ancient here, I remember growing up when compromise was a good thing. In school we learned how to compromise to end fights between friends. At home, I learned how to compromise with my parents so we all got what we wanted. And I remember a time when the word “compromise” wasn’t a synonym for evil when used in a political context the way it is now.

We disagree over Medicaid expansion, OK. While I have my own personal feelings about the issue, I recognize that there is a valid argument to be made for the opposing side. But this would all be a hell of a lot easier if we didn’t assume that our politicians can get exactly what they promised us. Because they can’t. They can’t stick to their guns so concretely that compromise becomes impossible. As we learned this week, when that happens you get crap like Puckett accepting a bribe.

So yeah, these layers of incompetence include us too. Let’s reclaim the word “compromise.” Let’s make sure this is the last time we facilitate an environment in which a bribe is a real possibility. Because otherwise, our elected officials will try this again.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Torbakhopper via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post VA Senator Accepts Bribe & Sells Out Constituents, Incompetence Abounds appeared first on Law Street.