Not-So-Good Doers: Corruption in the name of charity
Politicians and others practice corruption in the name of charity.
August 31, 2009 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
Something is rotten in Charity Land. Consider a few recent stories out of Washington, D.C., New York and New Jersey.
Washington's former mayor Marion Barry now serves on the city council, where he has been most adept among his fellow members at securing large sums of tax dollars in the form of legislative earmarks to six of his pet charities. That alone is not illegal, although the practice has gotten criticism in recent years at all levels of government. In Barry's case he managed to earmark funds for the charities even before they legally existed, according to a July 10 report by Mike DeBonis in Washington City Paper. Not only that, the charities were under the effective control of his personal staff.
All of the charities focused on activities in Barry's ward and employed people close to him. City Paper also reported facts intimating that Barry was deeply involved in how the non-profits spent the funds–clearly an improper action, if true. In all, the Barry-related charities received $950,000 of public funds last year.
Miguel Martinez, a Manhattan city councilman, resigned his office in July and pleaded guilty to federal charges involving misuse of public funds. He admitted to funneling funds into a long-favored charity called U-CAN, which received earmarks of $786,000 over two years and on whose board his sister served. Another Martinez-favored charity received $53,000 this year while employing his sister as a program aide, according to the New York Daily News.
Also according to the Daily News, the city is investigating whether several other council members sent tax money to other non-profits, some with relatives or staff members on the payroll. The paper identified the suspect council members and the non-profits, but did not offer a dollar amount that might have been involved.
Non-profit charities were again embroiled in scandal and received national attention in July when FBI agents swept up several suspects, including elected officials, in a one-day raid to shut down an international money laundering and corruption operation focused in New Jersey. Among those taken into custody were five rabbis who allegedly laundered millions of dollars through charities they controlled. The charges included claims the charities trafficked in kidneys.
It appears that unscrupulous public officials and others have deemed the non-profit charity form of organization a convenient cover for all sorts of nefarious deeds. Not only do the charities seem to be the perfect foil, they also enjoy an instant credibility by virtue of their do-gooder status. Indeed, with names such as the Upper Manhattan Council Assisting Neighbors or the Ward 8 Youth Leadership Council, the organizations do not automatically attract the FBI's or anybody else's attention.
Maybe it is just too easy to form a charity and then immediately operate as one. The law, both state and federal, is certainly complicit in such ease of operation, but that arguably is a good thing–it encourages good works without excessive red tape. But it is no secret, especially to those lacking true charitable intent, that in most states the attorney general's office is woefully inattentive to policing the charitable sector. Even New York, home to a large number of non-profits, has in recent years seen a decrease in oversight. Smaller states had none to begin with.
At the federal level, the IRS also is in straitened circumstances when it comes to doing anything more than even just keeping track of how many charities have a tax exemption and making sure their annual tax forms are filed. In other words, no one seems to be minding the store. Given the size of the charitable sector and the faith donors still have in it, the state and national governments ought to hire a few security guards.
With guns.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District
- 2SoundCloud GC Takes Legal Reins of Condé Nast at Tumultuous Time
- 3When Dealing With Child Abuse Cases, Attorneys Need to Know How Children Perceive Time
- 4Like a Life Raft: Ben Brafman Reflects on Nearly 50 Years as a Defense Attorney
- 5HSF Partner Removed Over ‘Deeply Offensive’ Tweets
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250