Ben Mannes: When your tax funds pay for political corruption
The use of public funds for investigative or official purposes is a necessary function of government, ensuring accountability, justice, and the rule of law.
However, when these funds pay for legislative inquiries or legal actions for overtly political reasons — whether to target opponents, settle political scores, or appeal to a partisan base — they become a vehicle for waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption. This issue is particularly evident in high-profile cases, such as congressional inquiries into presidential impeachments and local lawfare driven by political motivations, such as DA Larry Krasner’s recent vow to try January 6 rioters in Philadelphia, over four years late and 147 miles outside the jurisdiction where the crime occurred.
Two more examples are the impeachment inquiries into former President Donald Trump and Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s failed lawsuit against Elon Musk. All of these illustrate how political objectives can lead to the misuse of taxpayer money, raising ethical and legal concerns.
Waste and Abuse of Public Resources is a Crime
One of the most evident consequences of politicized investigations is the waste of public funds. Congressional inquiries, such as the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, involved significant expenditures of taxpayer dollars on legal teams, hearings, and administrative costs. While impeachment is a constitutional mechanism for holding officials accountable, it can also be wielded as a political tool.
The 2019 impeachment over Trump’s alleged quid pro quo with Ukraine and the 2021 impeachment related to the January 6th Capitol riot were seen by supporters as necessary legal actions, but critics argued they were politically motivated and predetermined, especially as the first Trump administration was nearing an end. The immense time and resources spent on these efforts, which ultimately failed to remove Trump from office, underscore how partisan motives can drive costly government actions that fail to achieve substantive outcomes.
At the local level, a similar concern arises in cases like Krasner, the Philadelphia District Attorney elected in part, through $1.7M in unlawful campaign funding from Soros-linked PACs, filed a lawsuit against billionaire Elon Musk. Recently, Krasner spent over $400,000 in taxpayer funds to sue Musk’s America PAC campaign lottery. The lawsuit was struck down by a local judge for not having the merit to make it to federal court.
Critics view this lawfare as politically driven, aimed more at targeting Musk due to his personal and ideological alignment with the Trump administration than addressing genuine legal concerns. This criticism has credence, especially considering the city’s outsized violent crime rate and Krasner’s constitutional responsibility to use his council-approved budget to prosecute actual crimes. Lawsuits of this nature divert taxpayer dollars from core prosecutorial functions (such as reducing violent crime), to politically charged battles with limited legal merit. If public funds are spent on legal actions designed to score political points rather than serve the public interest, this constitutes a form of abuse.
Corruption and Fraud in Politicized Investigations
When public officials use taxpayer dollars to pursue investigations or legal actions based on political motivations rather than legal merit, it can border on corruption. In Atlanta, for example, embattled DA Fani Willis’s once-celebrated indictments of Trump and eighteen of his campaign advisors, fell apart upon revelations that Willis paid private attorney Nathan Wade, her extramarital lover, $653,880 to work on the case. Nevertheless, defendants like Trump, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Philadelphia’s own Michael Roman still languish under Georgia indictments.
This kind of abuse occurs when government resources are used to benefit specific political interests rather than serve an impartial legal purpose. The Trump impeachments were not just divisive but also showcased how political parties can weaponize congressional authority for partisan ends. If an inquiry is driven more by electoral strategy than by legitimate oversight, it erodes public trust in government institutions and undermines the credibility of future accountability efforts.
Similarly, Krasner’s lawsuit against Musk was not handled by one of the approximately 300 assistant district attorneys at the District Attorney’s office, but by attorneys John Summers and Andrew Erdlen, whose work cost Philadelphia taxpayers more than $400,000 — all without a public bid or oversight.
Krasner’s failed lawsuit looks like nothing more than an attempt to suppress political opposition or intimidate certain voices. Add this to Krasner’s seemingly more aggressive stance on trying police officers over repeat, violent offenders, and it’s clear that his administration ranks scoring political points above the rule of law. Selective prosecution can be another abuser of power. When public funds are allocated toward cases that appear to serve a political agenda, the line between governance and corruption becomes blurred.
The Broader Impact on Governance
Beyond financial waste and ethical concerns, the politicized use of public funds for investigations undermines institutional integrity. It contributes to public cynicism, as taxpayers grow disillusioned with government institutions that appear more focused on partisan battles than on solving real issues. It also sets a precedent for future administrations and officials to retaliate in kind, escalating a cycle of politically motivated investigations that distract from governance.
This can be solved with transparent oversight by professionals who have the legal ability to bring charges where necessary. Traditionally, these are Inspectors General. However, on a state and federal level, elected officials like Larry Krasner and even US Congress have carved out statutes that exempt them from the jurisdiction of the Inspector General, and therefore flaunt their corruption.
President Trump has recently brought this issue into light by dismissing a dozen-plus federal Inspectors General who were perceived of participating in politicized investigations or “looking the other way” while the agencies under their jurisdiction wasted taxpayer funds on politicized projects. While critics say Trump’s action had a chilling effect on independent oversight, it is noteworthy that Trump’s firings did not include Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz or Homeland Security Inspector General Joseph Cuffari, whose offices gleaned evidence used to uncover corrupt practices in the FBI, FISA abuses, or in Biden administration border policies.
Oversight and legal accountability are fundamental to a functioning democracy, but their politicized use can lead to waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption. Whether in high-profile federal cases like the impeachment of Trump or local legal battles like Krasner’s lawsuit against Musk, the expenditure of public funds for investigations that serve political rather than legal ends represents a serious governance problem.
To preserve institutional integrity and public trust, officials must ensure that legal inquiries are driven by objective legal standards rather than partisan calculations. This can only be achieved when elected officials submit to the same level of oversight that they would expect from a cop on the beat.
Based in Philadelphia, A. Benjamin Mannes is a consultant and subject matter expert in security & criminal justice reform based on his own experiences on both sides of the criminal justice system. He is a corporate compliance executive who has served as a federal and municipal law enforcement officer, and as the former Director, Office of Investigations with the American Board of Internal Medicine. @PublicSafetySME
Ben, Good piece.