|
Pay to play, sometimes pay for play, is a phrase used for a variety of situations in which money is exchanged for services or the privilege to engage (play) in certain activities. The common denominator of all forms of pay to play is that one must pay to "get in the game," with the sports analogy frequently arising.〔(Terry Golway, ''Nothing Innocent About Pay-to-Play'', The New York Observer, Aug. 26, 2001 ).〕 ==In politics== In politics, ''pay to play'' refers to a system, akin to payola in the music industry, by which one pays (or must pay) money to become a player. Typically, the payer (an individual, business, or organization) makes campaign contributions to public officials, party officials, or parties themselves, and receives political or pecuniary benefit such as no-bid government contracts, influence over legislation,〔(J. Nesmith, ''Execs Pay to Play with GOP'', CommonDreams.org NewsCenter, Jan. 7, 2004 ), retrieved 2007-12-12.〕〔(''Chicago's Pay-to-Play Zoning'' (linking to series of articles from Chicago Tribune) ), retrieved 2008-01-30.〕 political appointments or nominations,〔(L. Riscalla, ''Pilot shows way to end pay to play,'' Home News Tribune, Nov. 1, 2005, reprinted by Common Cause at www.commoncause.org ), retrieved 2008-01-31.〕〔(''Pay-to-Play, Fletcher-Style'', Bluegrassreport.org, February 27, 2007 ), retrieved 2008-01-31.〕 special access〔(''Governor Giving Carte Blanche, Special Access to Major Donors: Pay-to-Play Abuses Aimed at Derailing Public Employee Unions'', Jun. 6, 2005 ).〕 or other favors. The contributions, less frequently, may be to nonprofit or institutional entities,〔(H. Hausemann, ''Politicos should return money from casino owner who admits trying to buy their support'', nmpolitics.net, July 18, 2006 ) (contributions to university and schools).〕 or may take the form of some benefit to a third party, such as a family member of a governmental official. The phrase, almost always used in criticism, also refers to the increasing cost of elections and the "price of admission" to even run〔(Mori Dinauer, ''Pay to Play'', The American Prospect, Jan. 23, 2008 ), retrieved 2008-01-31.〕 and the concern "that one candidate can far outspend his opponents, essentially buying the election."〔(M. Schmitt, New America Foundation, ''Pay to Play: Why a Billion-Dollar Election Isn't a Bad Thing'', The New Republic Online, Mar. 16, 2007 ).〕 While the direct exchange of campaign contributions for contracts is the most visible form of pay to play, the greater concern is the central role of money in politics, and its skewing both the composition and the policies of government.〔(C. Canary and E. Wojcicki, ''Dollarocracy: Pay-to-play culture still has a chokehold on Illinois politics'', Illinois Issues, May 2007 ).〕〔(''Clean Money, Clean Elections'' ).〕 Thus, those who can pay the price of admission, such as to a $1000/plate dinner or $25,000 "breakout session," gain access to power and/or its spoils, to the exclusion of those who cannot or will not pay: "giving certain people advantages that other() don't have because they donated to your campaign."〔Jonathan Fine, president of Preservation Chicago, quoted in (D. Mihalopoulos, R. Becker, & D. Little, ''Neighborhoods for Sale: How cash, clout transform Chicago neighborhoods'', Chicago Tribune, January 27, 2008 ), retrieved 2008-01-31.〕 Good-government advocates consider this an outrage because "political fundraising should have no relationship to policy recommendations."〔(J. Rood, ''On Heels of 9/11, Clinton Fundraiser Raises Eyebrows'', ABC News: The Blotter ) (quoting Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight).〕 Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington called the "Pay-to-Play Congress" one of the top 10 scandals of 2008.〔(''Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2008'', 2008-12-16 ).〕 Incumbent candidates and their political organizations are typically the greatest beneficiaries of Pay-to-Play. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have been criticized for the practice. Many seeking to ban or restrict the practice characterize pay-to-play as legalized corruption. The opposite of a pay-to-play system is one that is "fair and open"; the New Jersey Pay to Play Act specifically sets out bid processes that are or are not considered fair and open, depending upon who has contributed what to whom.〔(N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.4 ).〕 Because of individual federal campaign contribution limits in the wake of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold), pay-to-play payments of "soft money" (money not contributed directly to candidate campaigns and that does not "expressly advocate" election or defeat of a candidate) donations to state parties and county committees have come under greater scrutiny. This method refers to money that is donated to an intermediary with a higher contribution limit, which in turn donates money to individual candidates or campaign committees who could not directly accept the payor's funds. Pay-to-Play practices have come under scrutiny by both the federal government〔(Public Citizen ''Pay-to-Play and the Federal Government,'' 02-03-2004 ), retrieved 2008-02-09.〕 and a number of states.〔(Public Citizen, ''Pay-to-Play and State Governments,'' 02-03-2004 ), retrieved 2008-02-09.〕 In Illinois, federal prosecutors in 2006 were investigating "pay-to-play allegations that surround Democratic Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration."〔(Chicago Tribune, Nov. 1, 2006 ), retrieved 2008-01-31.〕 The allegations of pay-to-play in Illinois became a national scandal after the arrest of Gov. Blagojevich in December 2008, on charges that, among other things, he and a staffer attempted to "sell" the vacated U.S. Senate seat of then-president-elect Barack Obama.〔 〕 Many agencies have been created to regulate and control campaign contributions. Furthermore, many third-party government "watchdog" groups have formed to monitor campaign donations and make them more transparent. In a series of academic research articles, Christopher Cotton shows how selling access may lead to better policy decisions compared to other means of awarding access. He also illustrates how wealthy interest groups are not necessarily better off from having better access to politicians. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule that puts some restrictions on asset managers when they make campaign contributions. The New York and Tennessee Republican parties filed a lawsuit against the SEC in August over the 2010 rule, arguing that it impedes free speech, seeking a preliminary injunction against the rule. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell questioned whether the parties have standing to bring the case, noting they failed to name the potential donors and did not cite any investment advisers who are upset about the rule.. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Pay to play」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|