Op-Ed: Bridge, bribery and a billionaire

Op-Ed Columns

Related Photos

Phil Power

October 27, 2011

Op-Ed: Bridge, bribery and a billionaire

By PHIL POWER Columnist The Record Eagle Sun Feb 19, 2012, 03:03 PM EST

You might not think

finger-pointing could

make a sound of its

own, but it does. High, thin

and very penetrating.

And it could be heard

all over Lansing after last

week’s vote in the Senate

Economic Development

Committee sunk — at least

temporarily — the muchdebated

project to build

another bridge connecting

Detroit with Canada.

Start with Gov. Rick Snyder

and Lt. Gov. Brian Calley,

who had made the bridge a

key legislative objective and

suffered their first major

setback. Lots of Lansing

insiders sniffed that former

Gov. John Engler could have

done a better job of twisting

arms.

Senate Majority Leader

Randy Richardville (RMonroe),

whose job includes

managing the GOPcontrolled

Senate, ducked

responsibility after the

vote, telling the MIRS news

service: “I never said I was

there to win over my own

members. What I said was I

would manage the process.”

Richardville and Senate

Republicans blamed Senate

Democrats for screwing

things up and overplaying

their hand by introducing

at the last moment a bill

containing “community benefits”

for the Delray district

in Detroit, where the new

bridge would be built.

When Republicans refused

to include their demands,

Senate Minority Floor

Leader Tupac Hunter and

Sen. Virgil Smith, both

(D-Detroit) abstained on

the final vote, dooming the

measure, which went down

on a Republican-only 3-2

vote. (Technically, they voted

not to send the bridge bills

to the full Senate.)

For their part, Senate

Democrats complained the

Republicans reneged on a

deal to include community

benefits in the final bill.

Senate Minority Leader

Gretchen Whitmer (D-East

Lansing), said “You gotta

deliver when you make a

promise,” meaning Richardville.

Other Lansing insiders,

who refused to be quoted

by name, offered various

comments: “It was amateur

hour,” said one, adding

“You don’t schedule a vote

unless you’ve got the votes.”

Another commented that the

bridge bill was “everybody’s

No. 2 issue.” Meanwhile, the

Matthew Moroun family’s

Detroit International Bridge

Co. was tightly focused in

opposition.

“Tightly focused” understates

the point. Moroun

interests spent massively

to protect their very profitable

Ambassador Bridge

monopoly, which is completely

owned by 84-year-old

billionaire Manuel “Matty”

Moroun. According to the

non-profit, non-partisan

Michigan Campaign Finance

Network, Moroun sources

contributed at least $565,000

to political campaigns in the

2010 election cycle, including

18 candidates who are

now members of the state

Senate.

The Detroit Free Press

has reported that the Moroun

family’s contributions

included $9,700 to six of

the seven members of the

Senate Economic Development

committee. The report

said that the only committee

member who did not receive

money from them was State

Sen. Dave Hildenbrand (RLowell).

We cannot assume their

spending stopped there.

What PAC, or political action

committee contributions the

Morouns made in the last 90

days won’t be known until

the Secretary of State’s office

releases its next report.

We won’t know how much

was given to individual lawmaker

campaigns until next

Jan. 31, thanks to Michigan

campaign disclosure laws.

So members of the Senate

Economic Development

Committee made their votes

on the bridge without public

knowledge of who contributed

what to whom recently.

The Ambassador Bridge

Co. also spent something

more than $5 million on a

blitz of TV ads attacking

the bridge. The ads have

been widely criticized as

inaccurate and untruthful,

including being flagged for a

“flagrant foul” by the Michigan

Truth Squad.

I’ve asked around whether

Moroun interests also were

in cahoots with the Tea Party

in threatening primary opposition

next year to Republicans

who voted for the

bridge. Nobody I talked with

will say so on the record, but

most say it’s likely.

The scope, reach and scale

of spending by Maroun family

interests in opposition to

the New International Trade

Crossing is unprecedented.

And it’s quite clear that

without spending millions,

the lobbying campaign

against the bridge would

have failed.

Virtually every major actor

outside the Legislature,

from the automakers to

Brooks Patterson, wants a

new bridge. But instead, the

vast amount of money put

against the bridge produced

a distinct change in how

our state’s political system

worked.

And that, in turn, brings

up the tricky question of

what’s bribery and what’s

not. Detroit Free Press columnist

Brian Dickerson last

Sunday made the point this

way: “I can’t for the life of

me understand the practical

difference between rigging

the game with illegal bribes

and rigging it with campaign

contributions that are

neither effectively regulated

nor disclosed in a timely

way, except that the former

gets you a prison cell and

the latter wins you grudging

admiration for knowing how

to cheat the way gentlemen

do.”

I suspect this isn’t over,

and the proposed new

bridge will come back onto

the table in months to come.

Building it is just too important

to the economic future

of the state.

The construction alone

would generate thousands of

jobs, while a modern bridge

would be the linchpin of an

international trade powerhouse

centered on southeastern

Michigan.

And if we care anything

about ethics, the stage is

now set for a thorough look

at Michigan’s present bribery

statutes and the ways we

report political contributions.

If anything reinforces

deep and widespread public

skepticism at the integrity

of our political system, the

whole disgusting and offensive

bridge saga is it.