The Foreign Service Journal, March 2013

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MARCH 2013 13 Quantifying “Pay to Play” I t’s no secret that if you want to land a plum diplomatic assignment representing the United States abroad, it helps to be generous with campaign contributions, cultivate the right politi- cal connections or both. Retired Ambas- sador Dennis Jett recently highlighted this perennial issue in these pages via a Speaking Out column (“Psst! Hey, Buddy, Wanna Buy an Ambassador- ship?” November 2012). But it has been difficult to find hard data about such “transactions”—until now. In a recent study— “What Price the Court of St. James’s? Political Influences on Ambassadorial Postings of the United States of America”—Jett and Johannes W. Fedderke, both professors of inter- national relations at Pennsylvania State University, computed theoretical prices for different diplomatic postings between January 2009 and January 2011. Writing in th e Jan. 31 New York Times, Nicholas Confessore reports that the researchers compared available informa- tion on donors’ direct political contribu- tions and “bundling”—money raised on behalf of President Barack Obama by supporters—with data on the national income of host countries, their rela- tive level of safety and the robustness of their tourist industries. This generated “implied prices” for a selection of highly sought positions. Those whose political connections to Pres. Obama were measured in dollars, rather than administration service, had a better chance of representing the United States in Western Europe, and a markedly smaller chance of serving in, say, Central Asia or sub-Saharan Africa. Specifically, political ambassadors who had made campaign donations of $550,000, or bundled contributions of $750,000, had TALKING POINTS a 90-percent chance of being posted to a European capital. When isolating a country’s wealth over other factors, Luxembourg came in at the top of the chart, with a post- ing there valued at $3.1 million in direct contributions, while an appointment to Portugal was predicted to have a value of $602,686 in personal contributions. Interestingly, the model suggests that bundlers can get the same posts for less: Portugal was valued at about $341,160 in bundled contributions, Luxembourg at $1.8 million. Brad Plumer’s report on the study in the Feb. 7 Wonkblog section of the Washington Post covers some of the same ground. But he highlights the authors’ finding that plenty of political appointees have “overpaid” for their postings, while others have gotten ambassadorships at a relative bargain—perhaps because they had relevant skills or were closely con- nected to the president in other ways. As an example, he cites Vogue editor Anna Wintour, who was briefly rumored to be in the running for London after raising $40 million for Pres. Obama’s re-election campaign. Plumer observes that such a sum would have represented a steep overpayment, since Fedderke and Jett calculate that the Court of St. James’s is “only” worth between $650,000 and $2.3 million. (The point is moot now, since Wintour has reportedly withdrawn from consideration.) Plumer also presents some of Fed- derke and Jett’s data in a helpful bar graph showing the relative “price” of appointments to Austria, Belgium, Can- But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends; and we must carry those lessons into this time as well. We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully—not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe. And we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East—because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. We must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice—not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice. —From President Barack Obama’s Second Inaugural Address,Jan. 21.