** "Play to pay" versus "pay to play"

Yesterday TypePad ate a post here and I was irate enough, I just quit instead of starting over. Today the Argus delivered a story that fit right into the lost post.

 It appears that some cab driver in Sioux Falls was trying to get oral sex in return for free taxi rides to women prisoners on work release. He is being or has been prosecuted. This might be a "play to pay" situation. Somewhat separated, but perhaps a close cousin, is the South Dakota Governor getting a bunch of political contributions from businesses enjoying the fruits of "no bid contracts".

 A couple good stories by Kevin Woster of the RC Journal at least put some interesting information regarding the practice on the table. South Dakota law has been or can perhaps be interpreted to make some kinds of contributions and contracts which might be illegal in other states interpreted as legal in South Dakota. This might be a "pay to play" situation.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson dropped out of the nomination process for US Commerce Secretary because of an FBI and/or grand jury investigation regarding state contracts in New Mexico and contributions to Richardson-related campaign funds. The process in New Mexico is a federal process apparently not related to state law. According to a Bloomberg News article, the investigation of a firm is not just limited to New Mexico, but also to cities like Fargo, ND and is apparently related to the the idea that contributions allow the firm to overcharge. Much more information at the link below:
Bloomberg News on the FBI Fishing Expedition

Obviously, Bloomberg had a different title, but my perhaps biased view of the story is that it suggests Richardson is not much more than peripherally related to the investigation of the bond firm. It may well be that he dropped out because he was concerned that the investigation might taint the Obama administration or delay the attempts to generate a government economic recovery. Or, this may be a "pay to play" situation where the pay part is actually related to the option to grossly overcharge for services.

 I guess it is up to the reader to decide if there is more or less to these apparently connected stories. My conclusion not simply based on this, but also on past experience as a fundraiser,  is that politicians should not be allowed to accept so much as a cup of coffee or pair of socks from interests, interested individuals, businesses, or groups. Political campaigns should be limited in time and cost and funded by public money.

 If you as a disconnected person can't see the benefits the well-connected get because of their contributions compared to what you get, then you may be correct or just oblivious to the obvious.. I don't honestly know if what I see is really something or not. But, I think the future of our country may depend on certainly ending both "pay to play" and "play to pay" and ending even the appearance of contributions being related to contracts.

 

***Stay tuned, and the only contribution required might be your comments--- Doug Wiken