Seneca: Latinos and Ethics in the Public Place

February 2nd, 2009 · 38 Comments

The issue of ethics is invariably raised in this age of Enron, Sub Prime Lenders, Insider Trading, Pay to Play, tax evasion and numerous other illegal and/or ethically questionable practices. For Latinos who are acting in the public arena as elected or appointed officials and career public servants, it becomes an obligation to demonstrate respect for the public concerns on ethical behavior. The USA is no different than most other countries where corruption or unethical practices occur. Most nations, like the USA, have written rules and laws governing the behavior of its public officials. Unfortunately, too often those rules and laws are broken, either by a blatant corrupt act which violates the established laws or by a conflict of interest question, which technically does not violate the law, but has the appearance of impropriety at times coupled with a “foul smell.”

The Latino community, like most communities, is largely intolerant of any such violation of the public trust. Many fellow Latinos who have immigrated to the US are very familiar with official conduct mired with impropriety or corruption back in the society they left behind. This issue often plays into the decision to leave their country, after losing hope of ever getting the opportunity to improve their lot due to the corruption of the groups that exercise power. Hence, the concern over public graft is not new to our newly arrived fellow Latinos or to those who have been here for generations. Many are the incidents where public figures have committed an indiscretion or an act which suggests that the public trust has been violated, in our society at large, including all ethnic groups: Whites, Black, Latinos, and Asian. Yet, the most disturbing trend is the constituency support enjoyed by this type of public figure despite specific accusations and/or criminal charges. It is almost common these days to witness public officials and government workers become not just the interest but, even more seriously, the subject or target of a grand jury investigation, of a prosecuting attorney’s investigation, of a formal indictment, of a conviction, or of a Presidential Pardon. Too often the official being investigated or accused tends to seek public support, first by declaring that he or she is innocent (which well may be the case). But, even more importantly, when the evidence of wrong doing becomes most apparent through a conviction or a pardon instead of the community censuring or ostracizing the public figure, they extend their support, even at the voting booth.

In the past, the Latino Community has experienced the trial and conviction of at least two federal representatives, the grand jury and prosecutor investigations of: mayors (some even pardoned before any trial was held), several local officials, including state representatives, county and municipal functionaries and even corrupt police officers. Admittedly everyone, including public officials, has a right to a day in court with the best attorney and PR that money can make possible. The citizenry has a responsibility not to readily condemn its public officials at the drop of a hat, it must be discerning to detect betrayal of the public trust. Impunity before the law is common place in many parts of Latin America, but any attempt by elements or members of the Hispanic/Latino community to harbor or espouse acts or thoughts of impunity must be swiftly condemned. The fact is that too often we see disgraced public figures continue to be re-elected or welcomed back into the community with virtual approbation of their conduct. This denotes that the practice of ‘honoring virtue’ perhaps has ceased to exist in contemporary society. More specifically, society and/or its sectors should not overlook the destruction of the public trust nor should they accept such behavior as proper and acceptable. Recently, the news has been filled with images of the impeachment and removal of the Governor of the State of Illinois over improper practices (even if no legal process such as a trial has occurred). Other questionable concerns have arisen over Cabinet designees who are being scrutinized for not having paid taxes when due. Violation of the public trust is clearly grounds for censure and reprimand. Yet when the laws have not been broken and the question lies in an ethical dilemma is when society as a whole must decide the right course for addressing impropriety on the part of our public officials, for example in the case of personal indiscretions, such as marital infidelity. The easiest way to send a clear signal of disapproval is at the polls, denying these officials our support. Tasteless and disagreeable actions may suggest bad judgment, questionable ethical values and other such deficiencies. One prominent Washington public figure once noted that: “… getting elected to office or getting appointed to a lofty position is like climbing a tree: the higher you go the more your ass will show…”

Public officials in our day and age often do not seem capable of making the distinction between wanting to be a celebrity and being a public official. Both invariably attract scrutiny and attention. Celebrities often appear ready to cultivate ‘scandal and flamboyant behavior’. It seems to add a certain patina to their image. But scandal and outrageous behavior among public officials is not a value-added. It is plainly a disgrace and deserving of the public’s rebuke. The Latino community must avoid the perception that somehow it is ready to disregard behavior which is repugnant to common propriety. We must ensure that the Latino community does not accept or tolerate unethical behavior. Conflicts of interest are another concern in the public place which must also be taken seriously in order to safeguard the values, as well as the image, of the Latino community. Again, in these times of Governors getting impeached and removed from office, Cabinet Designees either being asked to withdraw or undergoing a most exacting scrutiny by members of Congress, Mayors tangled in sordid impropriety issues related to personal integrity, judgment and plainly unethical practices in appointments and contracting suggest that, ethical consideration should always be a factor among Latinos when choosing its heroes and/or leaders. Our role-models, the national political and the corporate business professional leadership, as well as the ordinary public civil servant class should all be chosen from within the framework of a society that honors virtue instead of extolling the foibles of the human condition. Washington DC is, as one public wag once remarked: “…a place where all of America’s former high school student council presidents come to do ‘good’ but invariably do ‘well’. Unfortunately, the point is that wealth accumulation tends to overtake the commitment to serving the public good at the end of the day.

Photo Credit: University of Delaware photo by Duane Perry of former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, who was indicted for conspiracy, giving false statements, and obstruction of Justice, in a scheme involving payments to a former mistress.

Pictured Second, former Congressman Bob Garcia of NY, who was implicated in a financial scandal.

And finally, Dr. Antonia Novello, former Surgeon General under Bush I, who is making news for being investigated for abuse of power (using state employees to do her personal shopping).

Tags: ethics · Government Accountability · Henry Cisneros · Seneca

38 responses so far ↓

  • 1 reenee // Feb 2, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    Excellent commentary on the old adage: Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • 2 Michaelr // Feb 2, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    Oooo…Reenee has dropped pearls of wisdom that are sure to be contested by all those Latinas living in denial. What will Anna say when she again denies that “Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely” doesn’t apply to politicians with Spanish surnames?

  • 3 Red Baron // Feb 3, 2009 at 3:34 am

    This is a very thoughtful essay. It is a very important time for the Latino community. While gaining mainstream prominence and recognition in many fileds that we deserve, Latinos remain starkly underrepresented in political leadership in this Country. Every Latino politician who does gain prominence at the local, state or national level is therefore given an unusually intense degree of scrutiny. Outsiders may be looking for chinks in our armor and opportunities to criticize, while the Latino community itself is looking for strong and inspirational voices to secure our gains and instill pride and courage in our youth. It is a time of hope and transition, conflict and scrutiny. That is why it is so important that our leaders today be truly above reproach legally, morally and personally. If we have an inspirational leader with a pock-marked moral life, then we won’t want our children to emulate him or her and other communities will use such character issues to tarnish the entire Latino community. Character matters. A person who cannot be trusted to respect moral law at night, cannot be trusted to respect mere regulations during office hours. Character flaws run through a person’s entire life and manifest irresponsibility in all aspects of life. That’s what Jesus meant when he said: “Whoever is faithful with very little is also faithful with a lot, and whoever is dishonest with very little is also dishonest with a lot.” Luke 16:10

  • 4 Ruben Botello // Feb 3, 2009 at 6:09 am

    Ethical standards should apply to ALL La Raza, not just to the “public figures” among us.

    Whether on the streets, in Hollywood or DC, ALL mature Latinas and Latinos should behave like the model adults our youth so vitally need to look up to with respect and admiration throughout their childhoods and teen years.

    There is nothing more saddening than to see our youth throwing away their lives or futures. We as adults must behave in a manner that inspires them to lead better lives, and this behavior needs to be our lifestyle (24/7/365 hasta la muerte), not just on Sunday mornings.

    Many of our public figures are bad role models because criminal or shady behavior is what got them notoriety in the first place. Their behavior may be known by our youth, but it is taken for granted.

    Much better known and mimicked is our behavior as parents, relatives and close family friends. It is in our homes where ETHICS is needed the most.

  • 5 Anna // Feb 3, 2009 at 9:35 am

    Re: “What will Anna say when she again denies that “Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely” doesn’t apply to politicians with Spanish surnames?”

    Will you stop repeating this nonsense. I have never said that politicians with Spanish surnames ashould be expempt from any rules. I think any politician who breaks the should be voted out of office or impeached. Some of you, however, don’t seem to understanmd that “crimes” and “corruption” are not words that can be applied to things like tacky Christmas cards, affairs, etc.

  • 6 Anna // Feb 3, 2009 at 9:46 am

    Sorry for the typos, let’s try that again:

    Stop repeating this nonsense. I have never said that politicians with Spanish surnames should be exempt from any rules. I think any politician who breaks the law should be voted out of office or impeached. Some of you, however, don’t seem to understand that “crimes” and “corruption” are not words that can be applied to things like tacky Christmas cards, affairs, etc.

    I do agree that politicians should be above reproach, but today’s invasive media can create a cloud of suspicion over anybody who doesn’t comply with the corporate agenda. They just have to say that you’re “under investigation,” and in the meantime a person’s reputation is tarnished and career opportunities are lost. Richardson is a perfect example.

    I don’t think they wanted Richardson negotiating international trade deals because he might not have given the corporations carte blanche. They replaced him with a Republican.

  • 7 Michaelr // Feb 3, 2009 at 12:15 pm

    “Some of you, however, don’t seem to understand that “crimes” and “corruption” are not words that can be applied to things like tacky Christmas cards, affairs, etc.”

    It looks like you need to refresh your memory on the American English definition of crime and corruption, Anna. $140K of public monies annually spent on tacky Christmas cards is public theft, especially when it’s posted annually for reimbursement from the GAO. There’s a long list of reimbursed expenditures that Loretta Sanchez lists that no other Federal Congressional Latino representative has the gall to seek reimbursement for. Not even her nemesis Joe Baca, who is as shameless as any politician can get submits similar types of invoices for reimbursement from the GAO. Her public and private behavior is another matter, which accounts for her lowly character, mixed values, and her overwhelming need to generate attention. But her profiteering at the public’s expense, a prime example being those tacky Christmas cards is theft.

  • 8 webmaster // Feb 3, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    I find it interesting that Loretta Sanchez lists a home in Palos Verdes as an asset, but she doesn’t own property, at least as indicated on the most recent (2008) House of Rep Financial Disclosure form, in her own district. She does indicate that she receives rental income from it though. This member of Congress will invest in a home in a more upscale gentrified area, but not claim any assets in Santa Ana or Garden Grove. You can look it up on OpenSecrets.

  • 9 Red Baron // Feb 3, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    Well, Anna, I believe that an affair is not a matter of public concern, unless it involves adultery or some other violation of a moral or legal duty. In that case, it is a matter of legitimate public concern, because it often diminishes the moral standing of a public official, and voters should care about that. One can make reasonable distinctions in such cases, without taking your categorical position that affairs never matter. Sometimes they clearly do reflect on the character of the people involved. If the adultery is a crime for one of the parties (due to military status, for example), or one of the parties is in an intact marriage (especially with children), or they lie about it, or if they commit the offense in violation of personal trust (say, a friend’s or employee’s spouse), then we might draw adverse inferences about the character of the parties involved. In such cases it is fair to say that the parties have exercised bad judgment and demonstrated a regrettable lack of regard for moral standards and the legal importance of marriage and the well-being of children, etc. In such cases, an affair is not really private, because too many people are hurt, betrayed, or put at risk. The voting public has a right to know about such glaringly bad moral judgment by an elected official, so they can make decisions about whether they want such a person to represent them and be a role model for their children. Who among us would tell our children that it is perfectly fine to commit adultery? (Are there no single people to date anymore?) We don’t have to wait for someone’s bad character or judgment to cross a criminal line before we take character into consideration in choosing our leaders and legislators. But, it is a free country, and people can vote on any basis they want. If they want reckless and immoral people, they can vote for them. Hopefully, our moral horizon is broader than just the criminal law, and we are not only concerned about whether a candidate has managed to avoid indictment. Sometimes you write as though that’s the only criterion you have.

  • 10 Anna // Feb 3, 2009 at 2:01 pm

    Re: ” $140K of public monies annually spent on tacky Christmas cards is public theft, especially when it’s posted annually for reimbursement from the GAO. ”

    If there is no law against those reimbursements, then it’s not theft. If you don’t like the reimbursement, then change the law. But don’t make an accusation of “theft” just because she spent money on something you don’t approve of.

  • 11 Anna // Feb 3, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    Re: “We don’t have to wait for someone’s bad character or judgment to cross a criminal line before we take character into consideration in choosing our leaders and legislators.”

    I agree. You can cast a vote based on any criteria you want. I have said that in my case, I really don’t care about a politician’s sex life unless it impedes his ability to do his job, or it is in violation of the law (as in the case of prostitution).

    It’s not ideal. Of course I would rather than elected officials not engage in that kind of behavior, but I live in the real world where people are human.

    I think that people here just don’t like Sanchez. You guys expect a woman to be humble, poor and shy.

    God forbid anybody should stand out or buy a home in a nice neighborhood!

    You can have that mentality. No thanks!

  • 12 Red Baron // Feb 3, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    Anna, I wrote nothing about Loretta Sanchez or Jack Einwechter. My comments and principles are independent of Sanchez and were articulated without reference to her. Even if you like her, you are not required to surrender your moral principles.

    I certainly do not expect a woman to be humble, poor and shy. You seem to think that a woman must choose adultery or poverty, immorality or humility. That is a very odd way to think.

    Throughout this debate, you have merely reasserted the same position without any attempt to be responsive to my arguments. You don’t seem to have any relevant knowledge base to make this dialogue interesting–you don’t know Loretta or Jack or the military or the law or the facts about their adultery. You just keep saying that she should be able to commit adultery without any consequences, because it is no one else’s business. Wrong. Hundreds of people in his family and circle of military firends have learned the sad facts over the past few years. They were both married when the affair began. Both their spouses were harmed by the betrayal. He has a bunch of kids, who have gone through the usual heartbreak of the mess. They made bad choices and hurt many people. You seem to applaud their conduct and accuse me of being sexist, which is ridiculous. One can be a feminist and opposed to adultery. Ask Elizabeth Edwards.

  • 13 Anna // Feb 3, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    If any of this is true, I don’t doubt that people were hurt. That being said, I still would not vote her out of office over it. Furthermore, it makes no difference to me that he was in the military. He’s a grown man who is responsible for his own actions, his own career and his own family, just as she is responsible for hers. I’m not applauding their conduct, and I oppose adultery. But after being in the real world, and having held many jobs, in many different industries, it does not shock me at all. This sort of thing goes on all the time.

    Furthermore, the only reason I characterized some of the earlier comments as sexist was because she seemed to be characterized as a “homewrecker” who lured a man away from his wife, as if she were a predator and he her victim. I don’t buy into that at all.

  • 14 theKaiser // Feb 3, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    “I do agree that politicians should be above reproach, but today’s invasive media can create a cloud of suspicion over anybody who doesn’t comply with the corporate agenda.”

    Above reproach…these people are public servants, not monarchs or deities. You’re the only person saying that politicians should be above reproach, Anna. Don’t drag anyone else into your abject lunacy with your idiotic comments. Maybe you should start paying taxes, and figure out how these people profit from their elected office instead of spewing out all this moronic commentary.

  • 15 DelToro // Feb 3, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    Should we not also discuss the house in PV is not in her district? How does Loretta claim to be in touch with the people of her district if she doesn’t bother to live among them?

  • 16 Anna // Feb 3, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    The Kaiser: Don’t misrepresent my statements.

  • 17 Michaelr // Feb 4, 2009 at 12:05 pm

    That’s exactly what you wrote Anna. There’s no misrepresentation on what theKaiser used to fuel his comment. Except responsibility for the things you write, or write a retraction. Or are you also above reproach like all politicians you think should be?

  • 18 BettyM // Feb 6, 2009 at 11:44 am

    Very interesting comments to a well written essay on ethics. .. .the following says it all.

    When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.

    (Thomas Jefferson, US President, 1807 conversation with Baron von Humboldt (1807)

  • 19 theKaiser // Feb 6, 2009 at 12:27 pm


  • 20 Michaelr // Feb 6, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    And I wonder why none of us chose to comment on Henry Cisneros? Or have we forgotten what this former HUD secretary and Mayor of San Antonio did in office and how he escaped prison? Henry B. Gonzalez would have beaten this man to a pulp had he lived to see this most recent incarnation. Now he’s trying to position himself as the leading Latino spokesman aimed at mandating Latino political policy. No comments?

  • 21 Anna // Feb 6, 2009 at 5:31 pm

    Henry had an affiair, and do you know what got him trouble? SHAME.

    If he had just come clean and told the FBI about the affair and the payments to his mistress, he would have been fine. He got in trouble, not for the affair or the payments, but for witholding that information from the FBI.

  • 22 Michaelr // Feb 7, 2009 at 12:48 pm

    And you have convinced yourself that it was shame, since you in the habit of making excuses for Latino politicians with Spanish surnames. As CyberSpace’s loudest Latino Apologist, you’d be surprised to find out that Henry Cisneros, as a public servant never met a developer he didn’t like, or that his tenure as Univision’s President was in name only, and his relationship with KB Home and Countrywide coincided with marketing strategies that led to the mortgage crisis. Then again, Henry Cisneros couldn’t be a part of that because he’s much too noble and decent. Shame isn’t a part of Henry Cisneros’ duplicitous character.

  • 23 webmaster // Feb 7, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    Anna: “Henry had an affiair, and do you know what got him trouble? SHAME.”

    Henry got himself into trouble. He knowingly and willingly had an affair, while his wife was tending to their son who had health issues. One should feel shame for cheating on a spouse, especially so publicly. He did not have to hurt his family. He could have taken care of his needs in other ways.

    I think that the shame of having lied to the FBI and subsequent indictment would be worse than having to disclose an extra-marital affair that many in his San Antonio community were already well aware of. Henry Cisneros’s ethics should be questioned, and Seneca raises an important issue…about the trend we and other communities have of continually embracing these people after they have committed indiscretions or violated the public trust. Maybe we should pull them aside and say, “We’re sorry, but you are no longer a good representative for us. Let’s let someone else take the lead” etc. Cisneros could be relevant in other ways, but why does he continually insert himself into the discourse?

  • 24 Anna // Feb 7, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    Michaelr: First Joe Baca amd now Henry Cisneros are responsible for the burst of the housing bubble. According to that logic, anybody who built or sold a house in the last ten years is responsible.

    Hate to break this to you, but the deregulation of Wall St is what caused the housing crisis, which is only the first step in the global economic crisis. Wall St used those adjustable rate loans to back securities.

    That has nothing to do with Cisnersos. lol

  • 25 Anna // Feb 7, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    Re: “He could have taken care of his needs in other ways. ”

    He should have gotten a divorce.

  • 26 webmaster // Feb 7, 2009 at 5:25 pm


    Who do you think pitches Wall Street and mortgage companies about the Latino market? Who encourages deregulation?

    Read the very last two paragraphs of Henry Cisneros’s wikipedia page:

    Did Henry Cisneros just sit quiet in those board meetings at Countrywide and say nothing?

  • 27 Anna // Feb 7, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    Again, Henry Cisneros is not responsible for deregulation. An employee of a home builder has no say over how Wall St is regulated.

    Those decisons were made by Clinton and Bush and their Wall St. masters. Not Henry Cisneros. lol

  • 28 Anna // Feb 7, 2009 at 5:48 pm

    By Martin McLaughlin
    1 November 1999

    An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.

    The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others’ industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated…

    …The proposed deregulation will increase the degree of monopolization in finance and worsen the position of consumers in relation to creditors. Even more significant is its impact on the overall stability of US and world capitalism. The bill ties the banking system and the insurance industry even more directly to the volatile US stock market, virtually guaranteeing that any significant plunge on Wall Street will have an immediate and catastrophic impact throughout the US financial system…


  • 29 Michaelr // Feb 7, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    For Anna the Apologist, ignorance must be bliss. Look who has trouble interpreting commentary in English. Joe Baca and Henry Cisneros certainly profited from the mortgage crisis, but so did tens of thousands of individuals from Wall Street, DC, and Sacramento. You’re not going to replace Ann Coulter with all your misdirection commentary. The least you can do is admit that you’re blind, deaf, and dumb when it comes to the performances and responsibility of public servants with Spanish surnames, and you don’t understand what actually defines accountability to those who feed off of the public trough. It’s not hard. Just admit you watch a lot of network television, and have trouble reading books without pictures. It’s okay Anna. Sometimes opening your eyes can be painful.

  • 30 El Cholo // Feb 7, 2009 at 6:20 pm

    Back to Henry Cisneros; why do you think this public service profiteer wants back into the whole Latino political game? Is he as shameless as all those people running NCLR and MALDEF, or is he just interested in selling his latest book?

  • 31 Michaelr // Feb 7, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    Well…the Latino community now in the large part involves itself at a federal and state level politically. But the vast majority of Latino politicians at both the federal and state level are caricatures of the stereotypical corrupt Latin American politician. Most of them are so incompetent they’re don’t even attempt to manage the business of their constituents, and instead focus exclusively on the business of self-enrichment at such a shameless clip that they don’t even bother hiding that part of their public persona from the voter. Henry Cisneros doesn’t convey that political stereotype to his public. He carries an intellectual air about him, and brings to the political table talents that are totally absent in the vast majority of his Latino political contemporaries. However, don’t mistake this for public service. Henry Cisneros tenure as Mayor of San Antonio and his brief turn as the Secretary of HUD were filled with numerous backdoor actions that can all be defined as various forms of public theft. The fact that he is trying to reinsert himself into the political limelight says that the powers that be firmly believe all of us have short memories.

  • 32 theKaiser // Feb 7, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    It’s got to be more than that. This whole political culture of transparency that Obama talks about will easily expose those twisted relationships with Texas land developers and Cisneros. He’s eight years too late. He should’ve attempted this during Bush, when it was popular to steal public monies.

  • 33 DoctorH // Feb 7, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    Cisneros and his backroom partners are thinking ahead. They’re assuming more and more people aren’t going to depend on network television and the print media for their news, so they’re banking on a more sophisticated form of political dialogue that will further hide their profiteering. Henry Cisneros stands out as being that face because he’s capable of intellectual dialogue, whereas someone like Loretta Sanchez, or worse Joe Baca couldn’t talk their way out of a paper bag. This is clever.

  • 34 Bearguez // Feb 7, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    Are you saying that Bill Richardson’s legal troubles have produced a void as the leading face of Latino politics? And Henry Cisneros is now trying to fill that void. Didn’t TIME magazine anoint Villaraigosa as the face of Latino politics?

  • 35 Anna // Feb 7, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    Michaelr: What a blowhard you are. Your opinions are just that–opinions. They are not fact. You sit here and accuse Cisneros of being involved in shady backdoor deals. Why don’t you name them? Name the people involved? Oh yeah, you can’t because you’re talking out of your a$$.

    And the only only one with a third world mentality is you. Cisneros doesn’t even hold public office and he hasn’t for over a decade. He has a right to make money. Oh yeah, I forgot, everyone of Mexican descent is supposed to live like a farmworker. If they’re making money, then it MUST be illegal or corrupt.

    And you keep saying that Latino politicians are making all this money feeding at the public trough. lol Most Latino polticians are not wealthy.

  • 36 Michaelr // Feb 7, 2009 at 10:55 pm

    Villaraigosa doesn’t have the cerebral capacity to even compete with Fabian Nunez, let alone Henry Cisneros. He embarrassed himself on that interview with Charlie Rose. There isn’t anyone out there, that’s why Cisneros is trying reenter the limelight.

  • 37 R. B Hernandez // Feb 20, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    Could you please make a list of all the latino corrupted politicians? Starting with Alberto Gonzalez. I may have the wrong idea, but isn’t it true most of the latino in politics have come with some corruptive issues?


  • 38 Let’s revisit Rosario Marin for a moment // Mar 5, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    […] has addressed the ethics issue recently, but it seems that some of our leaders aren’t listening. What will it take for […]

Leave a Comment