I am not quite ready to write about the project I am currently involved in, but when I do, it will be a major story, and not just on Ethics Alarms. I found myself, mostly by happenstance, at Ground Zero in a massive scandal for the legal profession. Now I am working to expose it, make the public and the legal profession aware of it, and to both fix the problem and take measures in multiple sectors to ensure that it is permanently fixed. I’m not doing this alone; indeed I am focusing primarily on the ethical regulation front. However, the alliance is growing, and includes an insider whistle-blower, several public interest organizations, litigators, law firms, and at least one national association.
Regard the foregoing as a preview of coming attractions. This post is about a conversation I witnessed that continues to bother me, and will probably bother you as well. Some of the participants in the project were meeting with a prominent, well-connected D.C. attorney with a long history of legislative involvement. The topic was whether an Executive Order from the President would super-charge our effort. The lawyer said that he was close to an individual who “meets with the President every week” and that the contact was capable of carrying the EO request into the Oval Office.
“But it will cost you,” the lawyer said. “Access isn’t free.” “How much?” one of my delegation asked. “You give me a figure,” was the answer, “and I’ll let you know what would get it done.” The lawyer shook his head and smiled at $100,000, and kept giving a negative response until the number reached $100 million.” Now you’re talking,” he said. “That’s what this kind of thing takes.”
The group is confident that it could raise that kind of money—the scam we will expose and undo involves billions—but its ethics consultant, me, pointed out that our mission is to eliminate widespread and destructive unethical conduct. Using unethical means to accomplish that goal will taint the whole enterprise, corrupt it, and undermine trust in its motives and participants.
There will be no $100 million pay-to-play cash deals, at least as long as I am involved. However, the bland, “it’s always done this way”/”that’s just how Washington works” response we got from that prominent lawyer is by turns chilling, disillusioning, and discouraging.
Ethics Alarms 
Jack wrote, “There will be no $100 million pay-to-play cash deals, at least as long as I am involved.”
Due to the fact that you’re not the only one involved in this and you only have one vote, they could out vote you and move forward with “$100 million pay-to-play” deal. If that were to happen, the question you’d have to ask yourself is whether your outspoken opposition to this pay-to-play deal (make it known and document your opposition) is enough to ethically shield yourself from this particular unethical choice if you were to choose to remain involved? Personally, I think it should be clear to you and others that you have a valued involvement in this or you wouldn’t be involved, so at least consider this; can you continue to help to “both fix the problem and take measures in multiple sectors to ensure that it is permanently fixed” or would you have to choose to leave for ethical reasons and hopefully those who are left behind are up to completing the task in an ethical manner? Sometimes the ways of the world force compromises to accomplish a desperately needed goal. As long as choices are not being made that are truly illegal, think long and hard and remember you’re there for a reason before a walking away reaction takes hold.
This could be a hard choice for you if the time comes and I won’t condemn you no matter which way you choose.
Choose wisely what’s best for you.
As you will see when I finally write this up, my veto is decisive. They can’t do it without me.
Jack wrote, “As you will see when I finally write this up, my veto is decisive. They can’t do it without me.”
Thanks for clarifying that, I clearly didn’t fully understand that in your initial essay.
I hope it all works out and the goal is accomplished.
The difference between a senator and a member of the House is a senator costs more.
The corruption in this situation reminds me of an old Russian tale.
A tailor makes a fine outfit for the Tsar, and the Tsar summons him to reward him with a boon. On his way to meet the Tsar, the tailor has to pass through three gates. At each gate, a guard refuses to grant entry until the tailor promises to give him a third of whatever boon the Tsar grants.
The story varies, but the tailor asks the Tsar for some punishment–99 days of hard labor, 99 lashes of a whip, et cetera–and then explains to the Tsar that he promised to divide his boon among the three gate guards. The Tsar laughs and gives the requested punishment to the corrupt guards, and then gives the tailor an actual reward.
I would try doing without the executive order if at all possible. Either way, I’d document the corruption issue and blow the whistle on that next.
I can understand the motivation behind charging a fee for requests, so that people only make requests if they care very much about the issue. However, charging such exorbitant fees for requests would put poor communities at the mercy of large corporations.
Deciding what is and isn’t worthy of being submitted as a request for an executive order is the contact’s job (I assume), and it’s their responsibility to decide based on what is constructive for the country and not whether they personally get a $100 million kickback. If it’s not their job, then they should not be passing along executive order requests about which they know nothing other than the requesters are rich.
Jesus, Jack! You’re involved in a group that’s going to expose BILLIONS in corruption, and it can’t happen without you? I should have the Alexandria Police Department stop by every day, or better yet just park a squad car permanently in front of your house. Not that it will help. They’ll just take out the cop before they come for you.
Good luck!
Don’t think we haven’t discussed that risk.
Is this along the same lines: Stephanopoulos: “Unprecedented Money-Making By A Sitting President And His Family” | Video | RealClearPolitics
Depressing.
Who gets the 100M, just the one guy with access? That’s a better money make r than insider trading in the Congress.
Sounda like a scam deal to me.
Just use X to tickle the ear of Elon.
No, it really isn’t a scam. This is real: the lawyer is a genuine insider and a good guy, as well as an honest lawyer. He wouldn’t take a pay-off. But I don’t doubt that he is being accurate abut how these things get done
Meanwhile, Yikes! This post has racked up over 950 views since I posted it this morning, which is unprecedented for a weekend. That kind of traffic usually means some other blog or blogs linked to it, and I have no way to figure out whose. So welcome readers of whatever it is: happy to have you drop bu!
Sounds like Rainmaking. From The Wire:
You pay, maybe something good happens, maybe it doesn’t. But he got the money. What are you going to do, complain to the BBB?
You made the right call.
I’ll be very interested to read more when you’re able to reveal more, but at this point, your account is quite disheartening. And I’m sometimes a bit dense at interpreting these things, so can someone clarify? Is this a case of:
1) President Trump is unaware of his subordinates enriching themselves by selling access/influence?
2) President Trump is aware and turns a blind eye to his subordinates enriching themselves by selling access/influence, but gains nothing himself?
3) President Trump actively enriches himself by taking a piece of the monies gained by his subordinates selling access/influence?
Which is the most likely option?
Follow-up question: is it likely that some/many/all of President Trump’s Executive Orders have been sent through the chain in this fashion?