Quid pro quo-something that is given to you or done for you in return for something you have given to or done for someone else.
Merriam-Webster dictionary
On Wednesday, the legislature held a Gov Ops meeting. In it, they reviewed the sordid tale of the prison contract extension awarded to Graeme Keith’s company, The Keith Corporation, last December. Keith, you may remember, gave big donations to Pat McCrory and other politicians and complained that he wasn’t getting his money’s worth.
During the Gov Ops meeting, Secretary of Public Safety Frank Perry testified that he heard Keith complain at least four times that he had given money to politicians and now it was time he got something for that money. He also testified that he didn’t report the incidents because there was no quid pro quo, so there was no crime.
No quid pro quo? Are you kidding me? Graeme Keith sure expected one and it looks like he got it. Once Keith made that assertion, his company should have been ineligible for the contract. Frank Perry may be a former FBI agent but it’s not his place to decide whether or not there was a crime. At the very least, there are serious ethical concerns and he should have reported them to somebody. By not reporting it, he either covered it up or he used very poor judgement.
The rest of the episode stinks, too. Budget Director Lee Roberts says he awarded the contract to The Keith Corporation because they were saving about a million dollars year. If that were true, why did they extend the contract last year but end it this year. If everything was on the up-and-up, what changed?
Additionally, Perry originally said that DPS had safety and security concerns with the private contractors. Were those not figured into the equation? And does saving money outweigh safety and security?
Finally, why wasn’t the Governor McCrory questioned? He’s the one who called the meeting that sent up the red flags. With the Governor sitting in the room, Keith complained that he wasn’t getting his money’s worth. McCrory said he was in a side conversation and didn’t here Keith. However, Perry and DPS officials ended the meeting because they were uncomfortable with the tenor of the meeting. Did McCrory ask what made them uncomfortable? If not, did he just leave the meeting clueless?
Perry said he heard Keith make the complaint four times. Keith called the governor to request the meeting. It’s hard to believe that Keith didn’t voice his complaint to the governor, too.
Graeme Keith certainly believed he deserved a quid pro quo for his contributions. Since he got the contract extension, he must believe he got it. The Gov Ops meeting didn’t shed any light on the situation and didn’t ask the questions that needed to be asked. Instead it looked more like political CYA to deflect attention from a pay-to-play scam on the eve of the 2016 election cycle.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
“The Miriam Webster dictionary.” Hmmm. I didn’t realize that Miriam was the power behind Noah’s throne!
Never mind. It’s actually the “Merriam-Webster” dictionary, since Charles and George Merriam bought the rights to Webster’s grand opus after his death in 1843.
Maybe Miriam Webster will make a good new entry for “Reed’s Homophones: a comprehensive book of sound-alike words,” published by Pisgah Press of Asheville.
Seems eerily similar to the discussion that took place during the last Democratic Presidential debate in Iowa, doesn’t it? Bernie Sanders mentioned that when Wall Street and other corporate donors give a candidate millions of dollars in campaign contributions they expect something in return. Hillary Clinton accused him of “impugning” her character. Hmmm.
Does promising not to reinstate the Glass Steagall Act or not to break up the too-big-to-fail financial institutions count as quid-pro-quo? If not, it should.
What’s happening in North Carolina in this case is little different. Face it Thomas, we live in a corrupted system of legalized bribery. Until we elect candidates in both parties (or in a third party) that refuses to take corporate campaign contributions we are doomed to perpetuate this corrupt system. That’s just ONE of the reasons it’s so important to support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary race. She may shift her positions around to appeal to voters on any given day, depending on which way the wind is blowing. But, at the end of the day you have to ask the question, “Who’s her Daddy?”
Eliminating Glass Steagall was a mistake, but it would not be adequate at this point for the financial system. It was never applicable to investment banks, hedge funds, large insurance companies (remember AIG’s actions), nor a lot of other newer forms of banking, and the exotic financial instruments involved in the recent financial crisis. Also, Dodd-Frank actually incorporated a modified version of the aspect of Glass Steagall that most people seemed to think was most important for prevent the large banks from playing with our money. (Personally, I don’t think it was strong enough but the banks hated it (still do), and it has had an impact on that aspect of their conduct.)
We need much more than Glass Steagall now, which is what Hillary Clinton keeps saying and on this point, she is correct. Whether her plan does everything that is needed is a matter for debate, but a number of notable economist have praised it.
As for breaking up the large banks, I think the interconnections between those banks and so many other sections of the financial system has many people seriously doubting that it can be done without inflicting significant economic chaos and damage. I dislike their size and impact, not to mention their several years of lobbying to prevent Dodd-Frank from being fully implemented, but I do have some concerns about breaking them up. Right now I don’t think this economy could withstand the possible consequences, but I want them watched, regulated and regulated again.
Might I also suggest that anyone who objects to the large banks should use a credit union, of which there are thousands open to almost anyone. I know of nothing that most of us need from banking that a credit union does not provide. And they are either federally or state insured and also heavily regulated. If a couple of million people pulled their accounts out of Citibank, Bank of America, or any of the large ones, trust me, it would be noticed. It was in 2009 when far fewer did. It is not just the money, it is the credit card usage, the car loans, the mortgages, and the children/students who usually follow their parents in choosing a bank. Banks may be venal, but stupid, they are not.
Complain, by all means, but also do something!
Excellent commentary. Thanks!
So happy we got rid of those crooked Democrats. The bright sunshine of above board ethical behavior and moral rectitude in now in place. God bless you GOP!
So you’re ok with our State being sold to pay back campaign contributions, as long it’s the GOP doing it.
Sounded like Brad was speaking/writing ironically, not literally.
Yes, from the time of the first announcement that this hearing would be held, if was obvious that it would be a going-though-the-motions, cover-our-collective-backsides proceeding.
Look, NC government actions and policies have obviously been for sale since November 2010. But when those illegal, unethical or public-welfare-be-damned actions are challenged and exposed, the NCGOP just wraps them neatly in either pro-business, “saving money,” “the Christian thing to do,” or “the budget can’t support it” terms. And too many NC’ers are gullible or greedy enough to swallow such lame explanations.