Should private companies be allowed to donate money to direct govt. services like the Police Dept.?

Individuals should be able to donate money, but I'm also not comfortable with the possible conflict of interest involved in companies or any organizations donating money to government services, particularly those who enforce our laws or government like the police or the military.

 

Perhaps if there was a system to make the donations truly anonymous?

 

I dont think it is that black and white.

Corporate donations shouldnt replace competitively bid solicitations for essential services but I dont see a problem with supplementing services that would not otherwise be funded.

If the NYC police department believes laptops in police cars make for better public safety, the dept should find the funds within the dept. and go out to bid, but if Microsoft, for example, wants to donate computer labs to inner city schools that would not otherwise be provided due to limited available funding that has to be dedicated to other essential school related services first, I'm all for it. I consider it part of a corporation's social responsibility.

 

It would depend on what MS is donating.

Laptops for police cars. No.

Computer labs for Police Boys/Girls Clubs. Yes. (maybe not the best example)

Most large corporations have foundations with the express purpose of community giving and strict guidelines. As I said, I am a strong believer in corporate social responsibility and that can and should include supporting some local government services, not just community groups or non-profits.

 

it sounds good but i dont think it would be very easy to keep such things under wraps.

 

I'd be curious to know if JPMorgan Chase made any other donations of this size directly to other public agencies in the last two years. Might offer a clue as to whether they are acting out of social responsibility or only targeting agencies capable of protecting their interests.

 

I don't know about you guys, but this smells. When you donate such a large sum to organizations responsible for enforcement of the law, I think it is very likely that you will see some sort of skew in favor of the donator, when it comes time to enforce the laws. For example, hypothetically, if, as an attorney I donate $10,000 to a Judge's $50,000 campaign, more likely than not, when I appear before the judge, I will have more leeway. Similarly, the NYPD may be swayed towards protecting one company instead of another due to the company's donations.

It's really no different than campaign contributions and a lot of the unsavory practices in government. Regardless, this smells a lot like 'grass-eating' corruption.
I still respect and trust Law Enforcement, but I don't believe such a large sum of money won't skew law enforcement some way or another.

 

I agree with what has been said about corporate donations to police dept, but I am of the belief there is role for corporate donations to other government services, particularly those that can demonstrate a direct benefit to residents.

Perhaps there is a model that provides a middle ground. I've worked with a non-profit group, Kaboom, that builds parks in areas of cities that are lacking such facilities. While the group is a non-profit, most of its funding is in the form of corporate donations. For a variety of reasons, the way the program works is for the Kaboom to donate those (corporate) funds or parks/playground equipment (purchased with those corporate funds) to the city parks departments and then participate with the city in the actual building. So, in effect, these new parks are corporate funded, but funneled through an independent non-profit organization.

 

Just seems to me the whole concept is opening the door for abuses.

I pretty much agree with redux's statement above.

 

Perhaps I'm over-simplifying and using a prejudicial word, but isn't this same concept, if twisted for unsavory purposes, just an euphemism for laundering?

 

Not sure if laundering fits quite as well as bribery.

 

Neither laundering nor bribery.

In the one case, you have a corporation donating directly to a city department, a direct one-on-one relationship that, although not bribery, may present a perception of a quid pro quo.

In the other scenario, you have a corporation being one of many that donates to a non-profit organization but has no influence on whether funding is provided by the non-profit to NYC or Des Moines, Iowa. Nor can the first corporation even make a reasonable assumption that its money has been used in the Des Moines project rather still sitting in the non-profit's coffers to be spent on a project in another undetermined city at an undetermined date in the future.

All of the corporations donating to the non-profit have met some level of corporate social responsibility by contributing to the building of parks to the benefit of residents in under served neighborhoods in cities around the country but none can claim a direct relationship with any city. Where is there even a perception of a quid pro quo here?

 

"In the one case, you have a corporation donating directly to a city department, a direct one-on-one relationship that, although not bribery, may present a perception of a quid pro quo."

quid pro quo- A favor or advantage granted in return for something: "the pardon was a quid pro quo for their help in releasing hostages"

The definition of bribery specifically mentions money, so I feel it is appropriate to use when discussing private company donations to city departments. The police department in particular.

I agree, that it is only a perception that bribery is taking place, until it is a reality.

I was not referring to donations to non-profit organizations.