Corruption (Institutional)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Former Ohio Speaker Householder Faces Sentencing in Bribery Scheme

      by

      Larry L. Householder, former speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, awaits sentencing on Thursday after being convicted of participating in a racketeering conspiracy that resulted in a bailout for two struggling nuclear power plants.It is, federal prosecutors say, perhaps the biggest public corruption scandal in Ohio’s history, a three-year conspiracy in which one of Ohio’s biggest corporations funneled some $60 million to one of the state’s most powerful politicians in exchange for a $1.3 billion bailout.And those investigators say they are only coming to the end of Act I.On Thursday, the former Republican speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, Larry L. Householder, will be sentenced in federal court in Cincinnati for violating racketeering and bribery laws.The outlines of the charges have been known since his arrest, with four other men, three years ago: FirstEnergy Corporation, a Fortune 500 electric utility based in Akron, funneled the $60 million though various nonprofit entities. In return, Mr. Householder rammed a law through the state legislature that gave the company the bailout for two troubled nuclear power plants. Prosecutors have recommended a sentence of up to 20 years.But, as described early this year in a 26-day trial, the alliance between the utility and Mr. Householder, 64, was far more than a bribery scandal. Among other things, prosecutors and experts say, it was an almost cinematic example of how the dark money that pervades both state and federal politics slithers unseen from donor to beneficiary.It is also a cautionary tale about how state legislatures — second-rung political bodies that are often run by part-time politicians, but increasingly dealing with issues of national importance — are at least as prone to manipulation by special interests as their Washington counterparts.David DeVillers, who oversaw the federal investigation as the U.S. attorney in Cincinnati until early 2021, said in an interview that the gusher of dark money was crucial to the plot and an issue well beyond Ohio.“Any time you have a supermajority, whether it’s Republicans or Democrats, and industries that are based on passing laws like marijuana or sports gambling or energy, it’s a formula for corruption,” he said.In a memorandum on sentencing last week, Mr. Householder’s lawyer, Steven L. Bradley, said that his client had not admitted wrongdoing, and that Mr. Householder genuinely believed that the legislation enacting the bailout “was an important piece of legislation, which is why he advocated and voted for it.” The blare of publicity and the ignominy of conviction, Mr. Bradley wrote, had left Mr. Householder “a broken man.” In an email, Mr. Bradley said he plans to “vigorously pursue an appeal with the hope of winning a new trial.”Mr. Householder, a onetime insurance agent from an impoverished rural county in southeast Ohio, had been House speaker from 2001 to 2004. He left his legislative seat because of term limits and faced a federal corruption investigation after leaving the post then, but was not charged.After returning to the legislature in 2016, Mr. Householder secretly spent millions in 2018 to support Republican candidates for 21 seats in the State House — more than a fifth of the 99 seats — who would back his insurgent campaign to again become House speaker. He spent more millions on a media campaign to push the nuclear bailout law to passage, and then tens of millions on a scorched-earth crusade to undermine a ballot initiative that threatened to undo it.By the time he was arrested in July 2020, Mr. Householder was soliciting secret contributions from others seeking legislative favors — and plotting to change the State Constitution’s term limits clause to extend his tenure by 16 years.At each step, a web of political action committees and dummy nonprofit organizations called 501(c)(4)s, after their place in the federal tax code, ensured that money fueling the schemes could not be traced to Mr. Householder or FirstEnergy.“The scope of the conspiracy was unprecedented,” prosecutors wrote in their sentencing memorandum. “So was the damage it left in its wake, both in terms of its potential financial harm to Ohioans and its erosion of public trust.”In a wiretap disclosed during the trial, a lobbyist charged in the affair, Neil Clark, boasted to undercover F.B.I. agents about his handiwork.“I spent close to $20 million in the last eight weeks, $20 million,” he said. “FirstEnergy got $1.3 billion in subsidies, free payments.”He later added: “So what do they care about putting in $20 million a year for this thing?”FirstEnergy sought a bailout for two nuclear power plants, including this one in North Perry, Ohio.Amy Sancetta/Associated PressFirstEnergy had sought state subsidies for two nuclear power plants on the shore of Lake Erie for years when Mr. Householder returned to the State House in 2016. The company claimed that renewable energy and cheaper fuels had made both plants unprofitable.Mr. Householder left little doubt that he wanted his old job as speaker back. After his 2016 election, FirstEnergy’s chief executive at the time, Chuck Jones, invited him to fly on the company’s private jet to attend the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump.Over several days of socializing at high-end restaurants, prosecutors said, they discussed a deal: Mr. Householder needed money to regain the speaker’s post when its occupant left office in 2018. The company needed a legislative solution to its nuclear power woes.What began with a handshake became a multimillion-dollar political operation, with the money laundered through nonprofit groups allowed by the tax code to conceal donors’ names.“They can give as much or more to the (c)(4) and nobody would ever know,” the lobbyist, Mr. Clark, told Mr. Householder in another wiretapped conversation. “So you don’t have to be afraid.”Chuck Jones in 2015, when he was FirstEnergy’s president and chief executive.Phil Masturzo/Akron Beacon Journal, via Associated PressNeil Clark, a lobbyist, was also charged in the affair.Jonathan Quilter/The Columbus Dispatch, via USA Today NetworkWeeks later, Mr. Householder established a 501(c)(4) called Generation Now. Other nonprofits, both new and old, were rolled into the scheme: a PAC called Hardworking Ohioans, two new nonprofits and many more.Rivers of anonymous money — most, but not all, from FirstEnergy — began to flow. In one typical transaction, Generation Now shunted $1 million of FirstEnergy donations to the newly formed Coalition for Growth and Opportunity, whose only reported officer was a Kentucky lawyer who oversaw other nonprofits. The Coalition for Growth and Opportunity donated $1 million to its separate PAC, which spent it on media campaigns supporting Republicans friendly to Mr. Householder and opposing unfriendly ones.And so it went: At least $3 million spent in 2018 to elect Republicans backing Mr. Householder’s speaker ambitions. Nearly $17 million more in 2019 on a successful media campaign supporting House Bill 6, the legislation bailing out FirstEnergy nuclear plants.Clean energy advocates and the natural gas industry opposed the $1.3 billion measure, which propped up two unrelated coal-fired plants and solar energy projects besides the $1 billion nuclear subsidy. And when they began collecting signatures for a ballot initiative to overturn the bailout, FirstEnergy devoted another $38 million to quash that effort.The money paid for a private detective and bullies to disrupt signature gatherers, as well as a saturation advertising campaign claiming that China was “quietly invading our energy grid” with the help of opponents of the bailout.Backers considered it money well spent. When House Bill 6 became law in July 2019, Mr. Jones, the FirstEnergy chairman, sent a picture of Mount Rushmore to Samuel C. Randazzo, then the chairman of the state Public Utilities Commission. Supplanting the mountain’s four presidents were faces of the two men and executives at FirstEnergy and another utility.Below that, prosecutors said, was an all-capital-letters caption that extolled their political clout with a common sexual vulgarity.Meanwhile, Mr. Householder’s Generation Now nonprofit was already plowing new ground. In a wiretapped conversation in 2018, Mr. Householder said he was “expecting big things in (c)(4) money from payday lenders,” an industry that has lobbied federal and state officials against regulating high-interest loans to the poor.For some, the cost of exposure has been heavy.FirstEnergy fired its top executives. Later, it paid $234 million in fines to federal agencies and surrendered another $115 million in ill-gotten gains after admitting to large-scale fraud.Mr. Clark, the lobbyist, died by suicide in 2021 after publishing a book that alleged a lifetime of dirty deals in state politics.Federal prosecutors say their inquiry is continuing, although they have not said where it might lead.F.B.I. agents removing items from the home of Samuel C. Randazzo, then the Ohio Public Utilities Commission chairman, in 2020.Adam Cairns/The Columbus Dispatch, via Associated PressIn what was, in effect, a plea bargain with federal prosecutors, FirstEnergy confessed that it had given Mr. Randazzo $4.3 million “to further FirstEnergy Corp.’s interests” on nuclear and other issues in 2019, weeks before Gov. Mike DeWine named him to head the state Public Utilities Commission.Mr. Randazzo, who denies wrongdoing, has not been charged.Court filings and related lawsuits have referred to Governor DeWine and Lt. Gov. Jon Husted, who have said they were unaware of the illegal payments. Both supported House Bill 6, and Mr. DeWine benefited from hundreds of thousand of dollars in get-out-the-vote support from FirstEnergy during his 2018 election campaign. The company also donated $75,000 to his daughter’s failed bid for a local elective office.FirstEnergy, meanwhile, faces investigation by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission and shareholder lawsuits.And in the five states where it owns electric utilities, utility commissions are likely to require tens of millions of dollars in refunds to customers, in part involving scandal-related spending.On Wednesday, the company said in a statement that it “has accepted responsibility for its actions related to House Bill 6 and has taken significant steps to put past issues behind us.”“Today we are a different, stronger company with a sound strategy and focused on a bright future,” it added.Mr. DeVillers, the former U.S. attorney, said that nonprofits like those central to the FirstEnergy scandal have been largely ignored by law enforcement. Enforcement of restrictions in the federal tax code on 501(c)(4) groups has been lax.Dave Anderson, the communications director of the Energy and Policy Institute, a watchdog group that follows the energy industry, said that might now change.“This is a case that really illustrates how they can be used for criminal malfeasance,” he said, referring to nonprofits. Now, he said, lawyers who told clients that 501(c)(4) groups are safe conduits for secret cash may be “holding their breath and thinking, ‘Maybe the convictions will be thrown out.’” More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones en Guatemala: qué significa el avance de Semilla

      by

      Bernardo Arévalo, un legislador de extracción académica, sorprendió a la clase política guatemalteca al avanzar a la segunda vuelta junto con Sandra Torres, otrora primera dama.Jueces y fiscales obligados a huir del país. Medios de comunicación independientes bajo ataque. Importantes candidatos presidenciales descalificados para la contienda electoral.En las semanas previas a las elecciones presidenciales de Guatemala aparecieron varias señales de advertencia hacia la tambaleante democracia en el país más poblado de América Central. Pero la votación del domingo provocó una sacudida sísmica: un candidato cuya campaña se centró en erradicar la corrupción obtuvo suficientes votos para forzar una segunda vuelta, lo que asestó un golpe impactante a la clase política dominante del país.Bernardo Arévalo, un legislador y catedrático con títulos en filosofía y antropología de 64 años, obtuvo el 12 por ciento de los votos al escrutarse el 98 por ciento de los sufragios de la primera vuelta del domingo, según informaron las autoridades electorales el lunes.Sandra Torres, de 67 años y quien fuera primera dama y es considerada abanderada del conservadurismo, lideraba con casi el 16 por ciento de los votos.A pesar de obtener un porcentaje tan bajo de los votos, ya que muchos guatemaltecos dejaron sus boletas en blanco o emitieron votos nulos, Torres y Arévalo estuvieron en los primeros dos puestos y se enfrentarán en una segunda vuelta el 20 de agosto, ya que la mayoría de los guatemaltecos no votó, dejó su papeleta en blanco o la vició.De hecho, el 24 por ciento de las boletas en blanco o anuladas fue mucho mayor que el total de votos de cualquiera de los candidatos. Además, el 40 por ciento de los votantes no participó en las elecciones del domingo, mientras que el 24 por ciento de las papeletas quedaron en blanco o fueron viciadas, lo que significa que casi dos terceras partes del electorado eligió no votar por ninguno de los candidatos.El sorpresivo respaldo para Arévalo, además de la baja participación electoral, es muestra del alto nivel de decepción en el sistema político guatemalteco, comentaron los analistas electorales. El gobierno ha sido cuestionado por sus tácticas cada vez más autoritarias, que han estado dirigidas en contra de los medios de comunicación y han obligado a exiliarse a decenas de jueces y fiscales especializados en corrupción“Estamos viendo cómo la población expresa cansancio con un sistema, con una forma de política y de gobierno”, dijo Edie Cux, director de Citizen Action, un grupo sin fines de lucro que formó parte de una alianza de supervisión del proceso electoral. “La población está exigiendo reformas”.Sandra Torres quedó en primer lugar con casi el 16 por ciento de los votos.Daniele Volpe para The New York TimesDos de los candidatos del establishment que eran considerados como favoritos —Edmond Mulet, un exdiplomático, y Zury Ríos, hija de un exdictador condenado por genocidio— quedaron en el quinto y sexto lugar.Previo a las votaciones del domingo, la autoridad nacional electoral había descalificado al menos a cuatro candidatos, entre ellos Carlos Pineda, un favorito temperamental que había inquietado a la clase política dominante, así como a Thelma Cabrera, una activista que intentaba unir a los votantes indígenas de Guatemala, que por mucho tiempo han sido marginados.La campaña estuvo dominada por un puñado de temas recurrentes, entre ellos el aumento de la violencia delincuencial y los desafíos económicos en un país con una de las tasas más altas de pobreza y desigualdad en América Latina.Torres, que quedó en segundo lugar en las dos elecciones presidenciales más recientes, ha prometido atacar la violencia con una estrategia que imita a la empleada en el vecino país de El Salvador a fin de derrotar a las pandillas.Sin embargo, fue Arévalo, a menudo apodado Tío Bernie, e hijo de un presidente recordado con cariño por muchos guatemaltecos por haber creado el sistema de seguridad social en la década de 1940, quien al parecer salió de la nada para lograr suficiente apoyo y pasar a la segunda vuelta. El liderazgo de Semilla, su partido, está conformado en su mayoría por profesionales urbanos, como profesores universitarios, ingenieros y dueños de pequeñas empresas.Loren Giordano, una diseñadora gráfica y emprendedora de 33 años en ciudad de Guatemala, dijo que había votado por Arévalo porque su partido promueve medidas que ella apoya, como la propuesta legislativa para gastar en la capacitación de oncólogos, equipo médico y medicamentos. Pero la medida no había sido aprobada.Sin embargo, Giordano no confía en que el apoyo que Arévalo consiguió el domingo resulte en mejoras tangibles, incluso si gana la presidencia.“Apoyo a Semilla y creo que sí quieren hacer un cambio, pero no creo que el sistema lo permita”, comentó previo a que se conocieran los resultados. “Parece utópico pensar que tendremos un candidato que no esté involucrado en corrupción y narcopolítica”.Caracterizándose como un socialdemócrata progresista, Arévalo llamó la atención en su campaña hacia el legado de su padre, quien también fue conocido por promover la libertad de expresión y de prensa y por alentar a los trabajadores organizados a desempeñar un papel político en el país.Arévalo nació en Montevideo, Uruguay, donde vivía su familia mientras su padre estaba en el exilio, luego de que su sucesor en la presidencia fuera derrocado en un golpe de Estado en 1954. Creció en distintas partes de América del Sur hasta los 15 años, cuando la familia regresó a Guatemala.A pesar de su inesperado desempeño, Arévalo enfrenta una carrera cuesta arriba contra Torres en las próximas semanas. Ella tiene más reconocimiento y se apoya en su experiencia como primera dama, cuando fue el rostro de programas populares contra la pobreza, entre ellas las ayudas alimentarias y las transferencias de efectivo para las familias desfavorecidas.Torres también puede contar con el apoyo de una clase dirigente poco dispuesta a alterar el statu quo, representada por el presidente Alejandro Giammattei, a quien la ley prohíbe presentarse a la reelección para un segundo mandato. Otros países de la región, entre los que destaca México, tienen leyes similares.Durante el mandato de Giammattei, Guatemala ha pasado de ser un modelo regional por sus esfuerzos contra la corrupción a un país que, como varios de sus vecinos, ha socavado las normas democráticas.Pero Arévalo también ha montado con habilidad una campaña insurgente, al mezclar el despliegue de memes con un posicionamiento serio en temas como la mejora de los servicios de salud pública. Ha dicho en repetidas ocasiones que contrataría a fiscales y jueces que se habían visto obligados a salir de Guatemala como asesores para que le ayuden a combatir la corrupción.Algunas figuras prominentes del establishment cuestionaron los resultados de Arévalo, argumentando que tenían más que ver con otros factores que con su atractivo.“Las encuestas no son creíbles”, escribió en Twitter Ricardo Méndez Ruiz, presidente de la Fundación Contra el Terrorismo, una organización de extrema derecha que ha buscado desacreditar a jueces y fiscales anticorrupción. “El resultado es responsabilidad de quienes incitaron al voto nulo. A ellos más que a sus votantes, tiene que darle las gracias Arévalo”.Aun así, un país donde la fórmula electoral ganadora suele tener campañas con mucho financiamiento, tiempo significativo en los canales de televisión nacionales y la bendición de las élites económicas, Arévalo no tenía “nada de eso”, dijo Marielos Chang, politóloga de la Universidad del Valle en Ciudad de Guatemala.“Nadie hubiera creído cuando comenzó la campaña presidencial hace tres meses que Bernardo Arévalo tendría suficientes votos para avanzar”, dijo.Simon Romero es corresponsal nacional y cubre el Suroeste de Estados Unidos. Ha sido jefe de las corresponsalías del Times en Brasil, los Andes y corresponsal internacional de energía. @viaSimonRomero More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Arevalo Upends Guatemalan Presidential Election, Advancing to a Runoff

      by

      Bernardo Arévalo, a professorial lawmaker, stunned Guatemala’s establishment by advancing to a second round against Sandra Torres, a former first lady.Judges and prosecutors driven from the country. Independent news media under attack. Top presidential candidates barred from running.Warning signs of the teetering democracy in Central America’s most populous country flashed in the weeks leading up to Guatemala’s presidential election. But the vote on Sunday delivered a seismic jolt: a candidate whose campaign centered on rooting out corruption won enough votes to force a runoff, delivering a stunning blow to the country’s political ruling class.Bernardo Arévalo, 64, a professorial lawmaker with degrees in philosophy and anthropology, won 12 percent of the vote, with 98 percent of votes counted in Sunday’s first round, the electoral authority said on Monday.Sandra Torres, 67, a former first lady considered a standard-bearer for the conservative establishment, came in first with nearly 16 percent of the vote.Ms. Torres and Mr. Arévalo were the top two finishers and will compete in a runoff on Aug. 20, despite claiming such a low percentage of the vote, because many Guatemalans left their ballots blank or nullified them.In fact, the 24 percent of the ballots that were blank or nullified were far higher than either candidate’s vote total. In addition, nearly 40 percent of voters did not take part in Sunday’s elections.Mr. Arévalo’s surprise showing and the lack of voter participation show a high level of disenchantment with Guatemala’s political system, election analysts said. The government has come under scrutiny over increasingly authoritarian tactics that have targeted independent news media and forced into exile dozens of judges and prosecutors focused on fighting corruption.“We are seeing how the population expresses its fatigue with a system, with a form of politics and government,” said Edie Cux, the director of Citizen Action, a nonprofit that was part of an alliance of groups that oversaw the electoral process. “The population is demanding reforms.”Ms. Torres came in first, with nearly 16 percent of the vote. Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesTwo establishment candidates who were viewed as top contenders — Edmond Mulet, a former diplomat; and Zury Ríos, a daughter of a former dictator convicted of genocide — finished in fifth and sixth place.Before Sunday’s vote, the nation’s electoral authority had disqualified at least four candidates from running, including Carlos Pineda, a mercurial front-runner who had unsettled the political establishment, and Thelma Cabrera, an organizer trying to unify Guatemala’s long-marginalized Indigenous voters.The campaign was dominated by a handful of recurring themes, including an increase in violent crime and economic challenges in a country with some of the highest rates of poverty and inequality in Latin America.Ms. Torres, who was the runner-up in the two most recent presidential elections, has pledged to address the violence by emulating a strategy used in neighboring El Salvador with the goal of cracking down on gangs.Still, it was Mr. Arévalo, often called Tío Bernie (Uncle Bernie) and a son of a president fondly remembered by many Guatemalans for creating the country’s social security system in the 1940s, who seemingly came out of nowhere to garner enough support to advance. The leadership of his party, called Semilla, or Seed, is comprised largely of urban professionals, such as university professors, engineers and owners of small businesses.Loren Giordano, 33, a graphic designer and an entrepreneur in Guatemala City, said she voted for Mr. Arévalo because his party promotes measures that she supports, including proposed legislation to increase spending on the training of cancer specialists, equipment and medicines. But the measure failed to pass.Still, Ms. Giordano does not have faith that Mr. Arévalo’s showing on Sunday will yield tangible improvements, even if he wins the presidency.“I support Semilla and I think they do want to make a change, but I don’t think the system will allow it,” she said. “It seems utopian to think that we will have a candidate who is not involved in corruption and narcopolitics.”Styling himself as a progressive social democrat, Mr. Arévalo drew attention in his campaign to the legacy of his father, who was also known for promoting freedom of speech and of the press and for encouraging organized labor to play a political role in the country.Mr. Arévalo was born in Montevideo, Uruguay, where his family lived while his father was in exile, after his successor as president was overthrown in a coup in 1954. He grew up in parts of South America until age 15 when the family returned to Guatemala.Mr. Arévalo, despite his unexpected performance, faces an uphill battle against Ms. Torres in the coming weeks. She has broad name recognition and is building on her time as first lady, when she was the face of popular antipoverty programs, including food assistance and cash transfers for poor families.Ms. Torres can also draw on the support of an establishment unlikely to upend the status quo, which is represented by President Alejandro Giammattei, who was barred by law from seeking re-election to a second term. Some other countries in the region, most notably Mexico, have similar laws.During Mr. Giammattei’s tenure, Guatemala has shifted from being a regional model for its anti-corruption efforts to a country that, like several of its neighbors, has undermined democratic norms.But Mr. Arévalo has also skillfully mounted an insurgent campaign, mixing the deployment of memes with serious positioning on issues like improving public health services. He has repeatedly said he would recruit prosecutors and judges who had been forced to leave Guatemala as advisers to aid him on tackling corruption.Some prominent establishment figures questioned Mr. Arévalo’s showing, arguing that it had less to do with his appeal than other factors.“Polls are not credible,” Ricardo Mendez Ruiz, the president of the Foundation Against Terrorism, a far-right organization that has sought to discredit anticorruption judges and prosecutors, wrote on Twitter. “The result is the responsibility of those who encouraged nullified votes. Arévalo has to thank them more than his voters.”Still, in a country where the winning electoral formula often includes deep-pocketed campaigns, occupying significant broadcast time on national television channels and the blessings of economic elites, Mr. Arévalo had “none of those,” said Marielos Chang, a political scientist at the Universidad del Valle in Guatemala City.“No one would have believed it when the presidential campaign began three months ago that Bernardo Arévalo would have enough votes to advance,” she said. More

    • 88 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Berlusconi’s Legacy Lives On Beyond Italy’s Borders

      by

      Silvio Berlusconi rose when political parties were weakened and carried on through a cascade of scandals. Leaders like Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro have had similar trajectories.In a strange bit of synergy, both the indictment of former U.S. President Donald Trump and the death of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy took place this week. Berlusconi, arguably, was the O.G. of populist leaders whose political careers carried on through a cascade of scandals and criminal cases.Both are examples of how the weakening of mainstream political parties can open the field for charismatic outsiders with a populist bent.In the early 1990s, Italy’s national “clean hands” investigation revealed that wide-ranging corruption had infected business, public works and politics, and found that the country’s political parties were largely financed by bribes. The two parties that had dominated Italian politics since the fall of fascism, the Christian Democrats and the Socialists, collapsed after a wave of indictments. So did nearly every other established political party.“The party system that was the anchor of the democratic regime in the postwar period basically crumbled,” Ken Roberts, a Cornell University political scientist, told me a few years ago. “What you end up with is a political vacuum that gets filled by a populist outsider in Berlusconi.”That 2017 conversation with Roberts, notably, was focused on another country, where another corruption scandal was opening the path to power for another right-wing outsider: Brazil, where an obscure lawmaker named Jair Bolsonaro was just starting to gain national traction in the wake of the Carwash corruption investigation.“I really worry that in cleaning it up, the whole system is going to crumble,” Roberts said at the time. “I really fear what a Brazilian Berlusconi is going to look like.”In another conversation this week, Roberts recalled that back then, most analysts did not yet take Bolsonaro seriously. “But he was beginning to stir, and my quote to you was in anticipation of his rise,” he said.“I think it holds up pretty well over time,” he added.A year after Roberts and I first spoke, Bolsonaro was elected president after running on a far-right platform that included opposition to same-sex marriage and fulsome praise for Brazil’s former military dictatorship.As his term neared its close, he spent more than a year warning that he might not accept the results of the 2022 election if he failed to win. When he lost, he made baseless claims of fraud. A mob of his supporters eventually overran federal buildings in Brasília, the capital, in a failed effort to prevent the candidate who won the vote, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, from taking office.Bolsonaro is now set to face trial next week over his electoral fraud claims.Other examples of this pattern aren’t hard to find. In Venezuela, a series of corruption scandals opened a power vacuum that Hugo Chávez easily filled with populist appeals, leading to to an authoritarian government that, by the time of his death, oversaw a country racked by crises. In Guatemala, after a corruption investigation forced President Otto Pérez Molina out of office in 2015, he was replaced by Jimmy Morales, a charismatic television comedian with no political experience who ran on the slogan “not corrupt, nor a thief,” as president. When the U.N.-backed group that had investigated Molina began looking into Morales as well, he expelled it from the country.The United States has not had a massive corruption scandal that sent politicians to courtrooms and jail cells and decimated faith in its political parties. But, as I discussed in columns in April and May, Trump rose to power after the Republican Party was profoundly weakened by other factors, including campaign finance laws that allowed big-money donors to circumvent the party, and the rise of social media that meant the party was no longer a gatekeeper for press and messaging access.That kind of institutional weakness creates an opening for outsider politicians who might once have been kept out of politics by robust political parties. But more specifically, it also privileges a certain type of candidate, who has celebrity name recognition (perhaps a celebrity entertainer like Morales, a famous businessman like Berlusconi, or one like Trump, who bridges both worlds), charisma, and a willingness to win votes and headlines by embracing positions that would be taboo for mainstream candidates.Unfortunately, it is rare for such politicians to also be good at building new, strong institutions to replace those whose decay enabled their rise to power.In Italy, Berlusconi presided over and helped maintain decades of weak coalition governments and political turmoil, not to mention the multiple corruption scandals he landed in. And that chaos looks set to outlive him.“Even in death,” my colleague Jason Horowitz, the Rome bureau chief of The Times, wrote this week, “Berlusconi had the power to potentially destabilize the political universe and Ms. Meloni’s governing coalition, of which his party, Forza Italia, is a small but critical linchpin.”Thank you for being a subscriberRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.I’d love your feedback on this newsletter. Please email thoughts and suggestions to interpreter@nytimes.com. You can also follow me on Twitter. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      George Santos Must Be Held Accountable by Republican Leaders

      by

      George Santos is far from the first member of Congress to be indicted while in office. Both chambers and both parties have endured their share of scandals. In 2005, for instance, F.B.I. agents discovered $90,000 hidden in the freezer of Representative William Jefferson, who was under investigation for bribery. He refused to step down, wound up losing his seat in the 2008 election, and was later sentenced to 13 years in prison. James Traficant was expelled from Congress in 2002 after being convicted of bribery and racketeering. Bob Ney resigned in 2006 because of his involvement in a federal bribery scandal.But in one way, Mr. Santos is different from other members of Congress who have demonstrated moral failures, ethical failures, failures of judgment and blatant corruption and lawbreaking in office. What he did was to deceive the very voters who brought him to office in the first place, undermining the most basic level of trust between an electorate and a representative. These misdeeds erode the faith in the institution of Congress and the electoral system through which American democracy functions.For that reason, House Republican leaders should have acted immediately to protect that system by allowing a vote to expel Mr. Santos and joining Democrats in removing him from office. Instead — not wanting to lose Mr. Santos’s crucial vote — Speaker Kevin McCarthy pushed a measure to refer the matter to the House Ethics Committee, notorious for its glacial pace, and the House voted predictably along party lines on Wednesday afternoon to follow that guidance.If the House doesn’t reverse that vote under public pressure, it’s incumbent on the Ethics Committee to conduct a timely investigation and recommend expulsion to the full House, where a two-thirds vote will be required to send Mr. Santos back to Long Island.Mr. Santos was arrested and arraigned in federal court last week on 13 criminal counts linked primarily to his 2022 House campaign. Mr. McCarthy and other members of the Republican leadership effectively shrugged, indicating that they would let the legal process “play itself out,” as the conference’s chair, Elise Stefanik, put it.In addition to expulsion, the Republican leaders have several official disciplinary measures they could pursue, such as a formal reprimand or censure, but so far, they have done little more than express concern. Mr. McCarthy has several tough legislative fights looming, including negotiations over the federal budget to avoid a government default, and Mr. Santos’s removal might imperil the G.O.P.’s slim majority. In effect, Mr. Santos’s bad faith has made him indispensable.His constituents believed he held certain qualifications and values, only to learn after Election Day that they had been deceived. Now they have no recourse until the next election.The question, then, is whether House Republican leaders and other members are willing to risk their credibility for a con man, someone whose entire way of life — his origin story, résumé, livelihood — is based on a never-ending series of lies. Of course they should not be. They should have demonstrated to the American people that there is a minimum ethical standard for Congress and used the power of expulsion to enforce it. They should have explained to voters that their commitment to democracy and public trust goes beyond their party’s political goals.At least some Republican lawmakers recognize what is at stake and are speaking out. Senator Mitt Romney of Utah reiterated his view that Mr. Santos should do the honorable thing and step aside, saying, “He should have resigned a long time ago. He is an embarrassment to our party. He is an embarrassment to the United States Congress.”Similarly, Anthony D’Esposito and Mike Lawler, both representing districts in New York, are among several House Republicans advocating his resignation. Representative Tony Gonzales of Texas has gone a step further, calling for Mr. Santos’s expulsion and a special election to replace him. “The people of New York’s 3rd district deserve a voice in Congress,” he wrote on Twitter.Mr. Gonzales gets at the heart of the matter. Mr. Santos has shown contempt for his constituents and for the electoral process. Mr. McCarthy and the other Republican House leaders owe Americans more.Source photograph by Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Why the Supreme Court Is Blind to Its Own Corruption

      by

      The scandal surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas has further eroded the already record-low public confidence in the Supreme Court. If Chief Justice John Roberts wonders how such a thing could have happened, he might start looking for answers within the cloistered walls of his own courtroom.Over more than two decades, the Supreme Court has gutted laws aimed at fighting corruption and at limiting the ability of the powerful to enrich public officials in a position to advance their interests. As a result, today wealthy individuals and corporations may buy political access and influence with little fear of legal consequences, either for them or for the beneficiaries of their largess.No wonder Justice Thomas apparently thought his behavior was no big deal.He has been under fire for secretly accepting, from the Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, luxury vacations worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, a real estate deal (involving the home where his mother was living) and the payment of private school tuition for a grandnephew the justice was raising. Meanwhile, over the years, conservative groups with which Mr. Crow was affiliated filed amicus briefs in several matters before the Supreme Court.That sounds like the very definition of corruption. But over the years, many justices — and not just conservatives — have championed a different definition.The landmark case is the court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. A five-justice majority — including Justice Thomas — struck down decades-old restrictions on independent campaign expenditures by corporations, holding that they violated the companies’ free speech rights. It rejected the argument that such laws were necessary to prevent the damage to democracy that results from unbridled corporate spending and the undue influence it can create.The government’s legitimate interest in fighting corruption, the court held, is limited to direct quid pro quo deals, in which a public official makes a specific commitment to act in exchange for something of value. The appearance of potentially improper influence or access is not enough.In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of adopting a “crabbed view of corruption” that the court itself had rejected in an earlier case. He argued that Congress has a legitimate interest in limiting the effects of corporate money on politics: “Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority’s apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics.”Citizens United opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending on behalf of political candidates and to the influence that spending necessarily provides. But the decision didn’t come out of nowhere: The court has often been unanimous in its zeal for curtailing criminal corruption laws.In the 1999 case of United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, the court unanimously held, in effect, that it is not a violation of the federal gratuities statute for an individual or corporation to have a public official on private retainer. The court rejected a theory known as a “status gratuity,” where a donor showers a public official with gifts over time based on the official’s position (that is in contrast with a more common gratuity, given as a thank you for a particular act by the official). The quite reasonable rationale behind that theory was that when matters of interest to the donor arose, the past gifts (and hope for future ones) might lead the official to favor his or her benefactor.That actually sounds a lot like the Crow-Thomas relationship. But the court held that such an arrangement is not unlawful. The gratuities law, the court ruled, requires that a particular gift be linked to a particular official act. Without such a direct link, a series of gifts to a public official over time does not violate the statute, even if the goal is to curry favor with an official who could act to benefit the gift giver.In the wake of Sun-Diamond, federal prosecutors increasingly turned to a more expansive legal theory known as honest services fraud. But in Skilling v. United States, the court ruled that theory is limited to cases of bribes and kickbacks — once again, direct quid pro quo deals. Three justices, including Justice Thomas, wanted to go even further and declare the statute that prohibits honest services fraud unconstitutional.The court proceeded to limit its “crabbed view of corruption” even further. In the 2016 case McDonnell v. United States, the court held that selling government access is not unlawful. Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia and his wife, Maureen, accepted about $175,000 in secret gifts from the businessman Jonnie Williams, who wanted Virginia’s public universities to perform research studies on his company’s dietary supplement to assist with its F.D.A. approval. In exchange, Mr. McDonnell asked subordinates to meet with Mr. Williams about such studies and hosted a luncheon at the governor’s mansion to connect him with university health researchers.A jury convicted the McDonnells on several counts of corruption. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit — hardly known as a bastion of liberalism — unanimously affirmed the convictions. But the Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that the things Mr. McDonnell did for Mr. Williams did not qualify as “official acts” under federal bribery law. Selling official access may be tawdry, the court held, but it is not a crime.Those who think Justice Thomas may be guilty of corruption may not realize just how difficult the court itself has made it to prove such a case. Now only the most ham-handed officials, clumsy enough to engage in a direct quid pro quo, risk prosecution.Viewed in light of this history, the Thomas scandal becomes less surprising. Its own rulings would indicate that the Supreme Court doesn’t believe what he did is corrupt. A powerful conservative with interests before the court who regularly provides a justice with vacations worth more than his annual salary is, as the court said in Citizens United, merely the “appearance” of potential corruption. In the court’s view, the public has no reason to be concerned.But the public clearly is, and should be, concerned over the ability of the rich and powerful to purchase access and influence unavailable to most citizens. Unfortunately, Citizens United is here to stay without a constitutional amendment or an overruling by the court, neither of which is very likely.But it’s still possible for the rest of the country to move past the court’s naïve and inadequate view of corruption. Congress could amend criminal corruption laws to expand their scope and overturn the results in Sun-Diamond, Skilling and McDonnell. It could increase funding for enforcement of the Ethics in Government Act and increase the penalties for filing a false financial disclosure form (or failing to file one at all). Beefed up disclosure regulations could make it more difficult for officials to hide financial interests and could make it clear there are no disclosure exceptions for enormous gifts of “personal hospitality,” contrary to what Justice Thomas claims he believed. And Congress could pass legislation like the proposed Disclose Act, to require transparency regarding who is behind political donations and spending.Congress so far has shown little interest in passing such reforms. But that’s where the remedy lies. It’s time for Congress to act.In his Citizens United dissent, Justice Stevens observed, “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.” That’s exactly how it now appears to the public — and that applies to Supreme Court justices as well as to politicians.Randall D. Eliason is the former chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School. He blogs at Sidebarsblog.com.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Who Is Imran Khan and Why Was He Arrested?

      by

      The former prime minister, who was ousted last year, was arrested on corruptions charges.Imran Khan, who was arrested on corruption charges on Tuesday, was elected as Pakistan’s prime minister in 2018 when he ran as a nationalist promising to fight corruption, revive the country’s struggling economy and maintain an independent foreign policy that distanced Pakistan from the United States.His arrest significantly escalated a political crisis in the country, raising the prospect of mass unrest by his supporters.What is his background?Born to an affluent family in Lahore and educated at Oxford University, Mr. Khan, 70, first rose to international prominence in the late 1970s on the cricket pitch. In 1995, he married a British heiress, Jemima Goldsmith.A year later, Mr. Khan tried to parlay his popularity from cricket — he had led Pakistan in 1992 to its only World Cup triumph — into a political career, establishing his own party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or the Movement for Justice. As a politician, he portrayed himself as a reformer offering an alternative to Pakistan’s entrenched political dynasties.How did he rise to power?For over a decade, Mr. Khan struggled to make political inroads and was mocked for his ambitions. By 2011, he began to gather political momentum, drawing hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis to his rallies. Many were energized by his populist, anticorruption and anti-American message.By then, Mr. Khan had embraced a pious form of Islam and sought to transform his personal image. In 2018, Mr. Khan got married for a third time, to his spiritual adviser, Bushra Bibi. (His marriage to Ms. Goldsmith had ended in divorce, and he was briefly married in 2015 to a broadcast journalist, Reham Khan.)After winning the backing of military leaders, Mr. Khan became prime minister in 2018. Many of his rivals accused the military of manipulating the election in his favor — an accusation Mr. Khan and the military have both denied. He ushered in a new foreign policy, moving away from the United States and closer to Russia and China.Why was he arrested?Mr. Khan’s relatively stable tenure began to unwind in 2021, as dissatisfaction with his handling of the economy came to a head and a dispute with the military over its leadership appeared to cost him its support. He was removed from office in a parliamentary no-confidence vote in April of last year.Tensions further mounted in November, when he was wounded during a political rally after a man opened fire on his convoy. Aides called it an assassination attempt.Since being removed from office, Mr. Khan has faced a series of charges, including for terrorism and corruption, and he has repeatedly faced threats of arrest after failing to appear in court. He has also openly challenged the government and military, accusing them of conspiring against him.Mr. Khan was arrested on corruption charges on Tuesday connected to a case involving the transfer of land for Al-Qadir University, near Islamabad. Mr. Khan has been accused of granting favors to Malik Riaz Hussain, a real estate tycoon, with the university getting land and donations in return. More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Milo Djukanovic Is Defeated in Montenegro’s Presidential Election

      by

      The incumbent, Milo Djukanovic, conceded to Jakov Milatovic, who had campaigned on pledges to root out corruption and organized crime.The shape-shifting president of Montenegro, Milo Djukanovic, Europe’s longest-serving elected leader, lost a re-election bid on Sunday, according to provisional official results, raising hopes across the Balkans of a long-awaited end to a political era stamped by the Yugoslav wars of the early 1990s.The vote on Sunday was a runoff between the two top finishers among seven candidates competing in a first round last month. Mr. Djukanovic, 61, conceded defeat late Sunday to Jakov Milatovic, 36, an Oxford-educated economist who campaigned on pledges to root out corruption and organized crime.Mr. Milatovic won decisively with about 60 percent of the vote, with 70 percent counted as of Sunday night.Mr. Djukanovic said he respected the outcome of the vote and wished Mr. Milatovic success, adding, “If he is successful, it means that Montenegro can be a successful country.”Mr. Milatovic, endorsed by most of the losing candidates in the first round, had been expected to win, but Mr. Djukanovic, a consummate political survivor, had dominated Montenegro for so long — he served four terms as prime minister and two as president — that his defeat still caused a sensation.“Tonight is the night we have been waiting for for more than 30 years,” Mr. Milatovic told supporters in Podgorica, the Montenegrin capital. “We said goodbye to crime and corruption. This is a historic day for everyone.”Mr. Djukanovic has been dogged throughout his career by accusations of links to organized crime, which he has strenuously denied.The defeat of a leader who began his political career in the former Yugoslavia lifted the spirits of opposition groups elsewhere in the Balkans, particularly in neighboring Serbia, whose own entrenched veteran leader, Aleksandar Vucic, also got his start in Yugoslavia and has been a fixture of Serbian politics for decades.“We hope that this victory will be a clear signal to everyone that the previous policies of division and conflict are dying because the entire region needs new people and new energy,” the Serbian opposition party Zajedno said in a statement welcoming Mr. Milatovic’s victory.Yugoslavia, a federation of republics, dissolved in 1992, but unlike, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia, which had all declared independence, Montenegro and Serbia formed a new federal state called Serbia-Montenegro. That entity, shaky from the start, fell apart after Montenegro declared independence in 2006.Mr. Milatovic, center, with his supporters in Podgorica, Montenegro, after declaring victory during the presidential runoff.Savo Prelevic/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Djukanovic first came to power in 1991 as prime minister of Montenegro, then still part of Yugoslavia. Initially a close ally of Slobodan Milosevic, Serbia’s Russia-friendly strongman leader, he later shifted his allegiances to the United States, securing Montenegro’s entry to NATO in 2017 despite widespread public hostility to a military alliance that had bombed the country in 1999.Mr. Djukanovic also sought membership in the European Union, but that effort, which began in 2008, stumbled largely because of Montenegro’s reputation for sheltering criminals.Mr. Milatovic vowed on Sunday to get the country into the bloc before the end of his five-year term as president.A political novice, Mr. Milatovic ran as a candidate for the newly formed party Europe Now and promised to shed Montenegro’s unsavory image. He accused Mr. Djukanovic of turning the country into the “Colombia of the Balkans,” a reference to Montenegro’s role as a hub for smuggling cigarettes and other contraband.Mr. Djukanovic was close to Russia in the 1990s and 2000s, when Montenegro opened its doors to a flood of investment from Russia and became a popular holiday destination for Russians. But he later threw his lot in with the West, accusing Russia of orchestrating what his officials said was a botched 2016 coup aimed at torpedoing the country’s NATO membership.He also reached out to China, sealing a deal with that country’s state companies for the construction of a “highway to nowhere” that cost nearly $1 billion and severely strained Montenegro’s finances.Mr. Djukanovic tried to paint Mr. Milatovic, his electoral rival, as a stalking horse for Serb interests, citing his endorsement by pro-Serb politicians. But that was a hard sell given Mr. Milatovic’s previous career with Deutsche Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the incumbent’s own long record of flip-flops and questionable dealings.Alisa Dogramadzieva More