Honest graft

David Tudor was a local attorney who loved politics. He rented space from me for a few years.

While his campaigns for office were not successful, he often had unique insight into the behind-the-scenes mechanics. From his perch as county attorney and political operative, he was an honest witness to what was really happening. He is the one I first heard using the term “honest graft.”

I understand the term was coined by George Washington Plunkett, the Tammany Hall boss and political operative. Plunkett described the difference between “dishonest graft” and “honest graft.” For dishonest graft, one works solely for one’s own interests. For honest graft, one pursues, at the same time, the interests of one’s party, state, and person.

Honest graft has come to mean (and as used by Tudor) the power brokering and/or moneymaking opportunities that arise to those persons while holding public office. The activities are, strictly speaking, legal, although they may raise eyebrows or provoke criticism. Tudor said honest graft involved things that one could not get indicted for, but were things that he and many others would not do.

There have been recent reports of honest graft on the federal level. DOGE has discovered that NGO funding may be the biggest scam ever. It is a way to do things that would be illegal if done in the government, but made legal if it is sent to the so-called not-for-profit, where people can cash out governmental grants and become very wealthy. The NGO operators pay themselves enormous sums as salaries or take other benefits such as travel. Musk found that USAID was laundering money this way.

George Soros figured out you could leverage a small amount of money to create a not-for-profit and then lobby the politicians to send a ton of money to that not-for-profit. A small political donation could yield a large donation to the not-for-profit who supposedly was doing a governmental function. The operator of the not-for-profit could maintain power, exert great influence, and grow wealthy without being indicted. They might even be lauded for their public service.

Has this type of plan made its way to Hamilton County? Hamilton County voters give to the NGO/not-for-profit of their choice, give the amount they want to give, and give on the timeline that is most suitable for them. It is a very free-market idea. The not-for-profit fulfills its mission to serve the public. The market decides which NGO should receive, how much the NGO should receive, when it should receive, and when money should be withheld.

Our local government may be wiser than the local voters. They decided some local not-for-profits should receive more than the voters have given them voluntarily. Thus, the county has recently taxed local property to make donations to the not-for-profits of their choice. The justification is that these not-for-profits are doing the work that government would otherwise be doing.

Maybe this even could be considered a good idea, to start with, but is ripe for abuse.

During a time when we are talking about lowering property taxes this might be an area to return to the will of the voters.

Ray Adler is a longtime attorney with offices at The Adler Building, 136 S. 9th St., Downtown Noblesville. He is also one of the owners of The Hamilton County Reporter Newspaper.