Love for Sale!

There are so many aspects of our expanding plutocracy that are disturbing, a country that is governed by special interests for special interests very much at the expense of Joe and Josephine Average. Notwithstanding attempts by Democrats to shade their opponent with the favoritism cloud, the traditions that have side-stepped meritocracy in favor of that plutocracy are not just the hallmark of the Republican Party. From Tammany Hall to the machinery in the Chicago political grist mill, Democrats reflect that same dull luster of cronyism with which they love to lambast and label their opponents.

But one American tradition is so embedded in our political system – for it has impacted every presidential administration in living memory – that it supports the kind of cynical statistical examination that can make you wince… but most certainly won’t surprise you. To wit: Political appointments to juicy diplomatic posts allocated – without a formal “pay for play” agreement (which is flatly illegal) – to people who contributed significant sums or organized events that generated significant contributions to the campaign of that victorious presidential candidate. These are the face of America to our allies and to significant posts all over the world.

A Pennsylvania State University Study, funded and printed by ERSA (Economic Research Southern Africa) last September, by Johannes W. Fedderke and Dennis C. Jett (professors of international relations at the university), under a title that asks the question: “What Price the Court of St. James’s? Political Influences on Ambassadorial Postings of the United States of America.” That “Court” is jolly old England, by the way, but you knew that. The ambassador’s residence (on 12.5 acres) to that significant post is called Winfield House, and in a city of outrageous real estate costs, look at the picture above and tell me what you think this building is worth. That dynamic professorial duo delved into this long-cherished process to discover what makes the posts attractive and what is required to win the appointment. The focus was on the Obama administration, but the practice applies to all recent presidents regardless of party affiliation.

Well you can bet (and win) that the posts that political appointees seldom ask for are in dangerous countries, not particularly attractive to tourists where poverty and living conditions for the general public are “harsh.” Duh-oh! You can also bet that high profile Western nations, places with lovely golf and beachy amenities and safe countries not too far from the United States are high on the “I want that” list.

“Not surprisingly, the authors found that politically connected ambassadors, including former aides as well as donors, were statistically more likely to be posted to countries in the Caribbean, North America and Central America. But those whose political connections to Mr. Obama were measured in dollars, rather than administration service, had an increased chance of representing the United States in Western Europe, and a markedly smaller chance of serving in, say, Central Asia or sub-Saharan Africa. The study found that political ambassadors who had made campaign donations of $550,000, or bundled contributions of $750,000, had a 90 percent chance of being posted to a country in Western Europe.” New York Times, January 31^st.

The authors correlated posted contributions and other publicly available data with resulting appointments, based on several qualities of the nations in which the appointments were made to see where the “values” were. “When isolating a country’s wealth over other factors, Luxembourg came in at the top of the chart, with a posting there valued at $3.1 million in direct contributions, while an appointment to Portugal was predicted to have a value of $602,686 in personal contributions. The model suggests that [campaign contribution] bundlers can get the same posts for less: Portugal was valued at about $341,160 in bundled contributions, Luxembourg at $1.8 million… When factoring in a country’s tourist trade, however, France and Monaco top the list, with the level of personal contributions at $6.2 million and bundled contributions at $4.4 million.

“The prices, authors note, vary considerably depending on which factors to emphasize. And in some cases, the actual nominees appeared to ‘overpay’ for their positions — raising or giving more than the model would suggest was necessary — and in some cases ‘underpay.’ That is because some donors bargain poorly for their positions, the authors suggest, while others may possess attributes (business experience, a personal connection to the president) that aid their case. But regardless of the model, Dr. Fedderke and Dr. Jett found, political ambassadors are more likely to be appointed to those countries that are wealthy, popular tourist destinations and safe.

“And what price is the Court of St. James’s — diplomatic-speak for Britain, the nation’s most prestigious post? ‘The price for the Court of St. James’s,’ the authors find, ‘appears to lie between $650,000 and $2.3 million.’” NY Times. I’m picturing the humble beginning of this great land, and then I think of the patronage system that we simply accept, pouring opulence on the cherished few with money and clout on either side of the aisle who can qualify for such appointments… and wonder how we really got this way… and more importantly, how long this system of government can actually endure.

I’m Peter Dekom, and exactly how do you feel about a practice that is so accepted it is openly and obvious practices by every president… without a hint of shame.