EXOD863 Can I Pay a Functionary to "Grease the Wheels" a Bit? Bribery, even the petty kind, terribly undermines sound public administration and public trust. It imposes unfair costs on citizens, degrades the level of service by enabling people to get around a law, and leads to a general atmosphere of cynicism and exploitation. At the same time, a blanket prohibition on giving bribes would make life unlivable in places where this corrupt habit is a way of public life. Let's examine the guidelines Jewish law provides for coping with this descriptive phenomenon. Q: "Business as usual" for our construction firm is like this: We have to pay off City Hall to get a building permit, compensate the police to let us unload building materials, acknowledge the union official in order to get construction workers, and reward the city engineer to certify the building. Finally, we have to pay the tax examiners to let us declare all these payments as a business expense! Is it ethical for me to continue in this business? A: Judaism's view of bribery is clear: "Do not accept bribes, for bribery blinds [even] the wise and distorts [even] the words of the righteous." [this verse] Although the verse refers to a judge, the rationale applies to anyone in a position of public trust. A person may rationalize accepting a bribe and convince himself that his judgment will be unaffected, but the Torah tells us that even a wise and righteous person cannot avoid having his point of view influenced by a bribe. The example of the Jewish sages is to go to the utmost extreme to avoid even the appearance of favoritism. The sage Samuel disqualified himself from judging a litigant who as a simple courtesy gave him a hand as he alighted from the boat; the sage Ameimar disqualified himself from someone who drove away a stray bird who landed on him [Ketubot 105b]. The sage Rav disqualified himself from judging someone who had once hosted him in his home; the replacement judge, Rav Kahana, saw that this litigant continued to make an ostentatious show of his "friendship" with Rav, and threatened to ban the litigant for creating even an impression of favoritism [Sanhedrin 7b]. So accepting a bride can never be tolerated. But what about giving a bribe? Here, the key ethical question is: Does my bribe contribute to wrongdoing? If a public official is fulfilling his public trust and someone offers some money to betray it, this is clearly leading him astray, placing a spiritual "stumbling block before the blind." [Leviticus 19:14] Furthermore, if an official deviates sufficiently from his mandate, the service he performs is effectively unauthorized. This may amount to stealing from the public, which Jewish tradition tells us is the severest kind of theft [Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:14]. The more complex ethical question arises when an official demands payment to carry out what he is supposed to be doing anyway. This is a perplexing gray area. There is no betrayal of public trust, because instead of inducing him to stumble, we are urging him to do the right thing. Insofar as the demand comes from the official himself, and he has a responsibility to carry out his duty, this situation is closer to extortion than to bribery. Yet even this kind of payment has dangers. First of all, if everybody becomes reconciled to bribes, it will be impossible to rectify the situation. Open bribery undermines society's moral fiber; condoning it shows a lack of moral leadership. Second, it is easy to cross the line into criminal activity. The building inspector who charges a $1,000 to approve a sound building would probably accept $10,000 to approve an unsound one. In turn, the builder may find that it is an attractive bargain to cut corners and just pay off the inspector. The same distinction between paying someone to do something he should not and paying him to do something he should is entrenched in American law. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits payments "influencing any action or decision of [a] foreign official in his official capacity." But there is an exception to the prohibition for payments to "expedite or to secure the performance of a routine governmental action," such as obtaining permits. These are sometimes known as "grease payments." Let us apply these insights to your case. Extorted payments for routine things like building permits, getting workers, and obtaining approval are not necessarily unethical if you are fulfilling the legal requirements and not transgressing any laws. City officials are already required to provide these services; any demand for payment clearly constitutes extortion. According to the legal definition we would view these as "greased payments." Even so, you should do your utmost to avoid giving in to this extortion. Experience shows that businesses can successfully resist extortion through the following steps: 1. An inflexible policy not to pay any bribes, which clearly broadcasts the message, "Don't even ask" and tends to forestall demands for graft; 2. Meticulous fulfillment of appropriate by-laws, thus making it difficult for an inspector to find a legal excuse to penalize the firm; 3. A non-judgmental attitude towards corrupt officials. While threatening exposure or legal action may sometimes be necessary, often a non-threatening attitude is more effective in promoting a livable relationship with officials. Functionaries themselves may find the habit of graft demoralizing, and may be positively relieved to encounter a workplace where more enlightened practices prevail. But they will not find it relieving to sense that they are being judged or condemned. Paying off the police is very demoralizing for society and is unquestionably much worse. Police are not mere supervisors of specific regulations; they are guardians of the law. Technically speaking, you face extortion, and these payments can be ethically justified if you scrupulously remove construction materials and waste in strictest accordance with accepted practice. But this should absolutely be a last resort. What about payments to the tax officials? These clearly cross the red line. Your firm is paying them to betray their public trust to supervise your accounts; furthermore, you take advantage of this betrayal to gain an illegal tax break. An additional consideration is that one of the reasons bribes are disallowed as deductions is precisely to make it unprofitable to operate in a corrupt manner. This is meant to introduce some accountability into the other public institutions, such as city government. So the bribes to tax official undermine the law's last bulwark against the cancer of public corruption. The ethical ideal is to stand up to moral challenges, not to evade them. As the popular saying goes, it's easy to be an angel if nobody ruffles your feathers. It is praiseworthy to strive to continue your current line of work, while adopting policies which contribute at least incrementally to upright conduct in your industry. But it is true nonetheless that some kinds of businesses have to be left to scoundrels, and if corruption is deeply entrenched it may be that construction in your city is one of them.