By George D. Brown
The conviction of Providence Mayor Vincent J. "Buddy" Cianci was a major event in Rhode Island. The popular mayor had been the dominant political personality in the state for two decades. The trial itself was the source of theatrics that far surpassed anything seen on the NBC show "Providence."
Yet far more was at stake than colorful revelations and political futures. The trial raised dramatically one of the central issues in the American political system: Is it the job of the federal government - specifically the Department of Justice - to investigate and prosecute state and local corruption? That certainly is the case now. During a recent 20-year period, 6,672 state and local officials were indicted on federal corruption charges. They have ranged from governors and mayors to police officers and sewer inspectors.
National administrations of both parties have nurtured the image of the federal sheriff riding in to clean up some state or local mess.
Behind this popular concept, however, lies a fundamental question: Why should one level of government police another? Why can't the states do it themselves? One answer is that it works, as the statistics show. Another is that federal law enforcement agencies have resources that most other jurisdictions lack.
Recent corruption investigations - often given colorful names, as with Operation Plunder Dome in Providence - have included everything from high-tech evidence gathering to mini-ABSCAMS (complete with compelling video). The third, and most controversial, justification is that the states (and localities) are incapable of doing the job themselves.
The question is not just one of resources. The problem is that it is virtually impossible for one branch of, for example, state government to police another branch. Relations are too close, often involving working together on a range of matters. Frequently, the individuals involved are in the same building or cluster of buildings. One branch often does not react well to supervision by another. Although not an example of corruption, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found this out in the recent Clean Elections fiasco.
On the other hand, it may be a serious mistake to just give up on the states. Depending on the federal sheriff to ride in when the going gets tough stymies the growth of a local political culture opposed to corruption. It impedes the growth of public trust in public institutions. It may also run into problems with the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently has been emphasizing the independence of states.
What about Massachusetts? We have strong ethics laws on the books and an independent State Ethics Commission, which enforces them through civil proceedings rather than criminal prosecutions. But does this system make a difference?
Current events give cause for doubt. Recently, State Treasurer and Democratic gubernatorial front-runner Shannon O'Brien seemed not to appreciate the difference between disclosure and recusal. At the Republican-dominated Massachusetts Port Authority, the newly minted executive director did not seem even to understand disclosure. The current gubernatorial campaign - in which one hears frequent references to "trust" - is an ideal opportunity to get candidates on the record about ethics issues.
Apart from their own conduct (all candidates consider themselves ethical), we should look for commitment to the principles of the ethics laws and the practice of strong enforcement. For example, it is easy for the governor and Legislature to eviscerate the Ethics Commission through quiet budgetary reductions. On a more general level, it is also easy to let things slide and return to what one ex-governor called "the old ways."
It is also a sure-fire invitation to the federal sheriff to ride again.
George Brown is a professor at Boston College Law School.