Wow--a lot of really questionable stuff going on in this article about corrections officer unions donating to NYC district attorneys. Let's unpack it . . . thecity.nyc/2019/11/correc…
First, there's the fact that the Bronx District Attorney is unopposed. While it is quite common for prosecutors to run unopposed, it is far less common for it to happen in such large districts. The Bronx has more than 1.3 million inhabitants, including more than 2,000 lawyers.
Second, there is the fact that, despite being unopposed, Clark has raised more than $300,000. It isn't clear from this story how much of that fundraising happened before it was clear that she would not face an opponent, but I have concerns about unopposed candidates raising $$
Third, Clark originally obtained her office because her predecessor stepped down partway through his term, and then handpicked his successor. That allowed Clark to run for reelection as the incumbent.
I've noted this practice in many other jurisdictions.
I've noted this practice in many other jurisdictions.
(Here's some excellent reporting out of Florida about this practice in the context of a sheriff's race--Florida doesn't require unopposed candidates to even appear on the ballot! tampabay.com/investigations…)
Now, the article about Bronx DA Clark and the corrections' officer union paints these contributions as a conflict of interest.
The contributions are coming from a union, not the individual officers who are accused. So I'm not sure this is necessarily a classic conflict.
The contributions are coming from a union, not the individual officers who are accused. So I'm not sure this is necessarily a classic conflict.
The problem here is not just about the union's contributions, it is also about the lack of transparency surrounding the DA's decisions not to bring charges in these cases.
As a general matter, decisions not to charge aren't judicially reviewable, and DAs rarely explain them.
As a general matter, decisions not to charge aren't judicially reviewable, and DAs rarely explain them.
That isn't to say that these contributions ought not receive scrutiny--they should.
It's that what we probably care about the most isn't the money, it's the power. Were these defensible decisions or not. We simply do not know.
And DA Clark should take pains to explain them.
It's that what we probably care about the most isn't the money, it's the power. Were these defensible decisions or not. We simply do not know.
And DA Clark should take pains to explain them.
