ere also able to use the protection and influence of wealthy individuals and the influence of paid off politicians in maintaining and perpetuating their illegal activities. Between his savvy running of the Syndicate and his connection to the wealthy and political powerful, Lansky is compared more to a “preeminent investment banker and broker” and a “classic manager and financier” of a major organized crime organization than a criminal (Denton et al. 2001, 23). Even Lansky was aware of the fact that it was the rich and politically powerful that allowed him to control a large confederation of legal and illegal enterprises, just so long as he followed their rules. As he said of his conspirators in bootlegging in which he made a fortune, they were “the most important people in the country” (22). Thus we see that The Money and the Power provides and excellent example of the relationship between organized crime and politics in the United States. Organized crime members are not just criminals who engage in illegal activities, they were also men who profited from their activities like Joseph and John F. Kennedy, Howard Hughes, J. Edgar Hoover, and legitimate bankers and financiers.
Weber, Marx and others have underscored the importance of legitimacy for state survival. One of the ways such legitimacy is maintained is through the creation of laws and law enforcement that aims at promoting social order, at least on the surface. Examples of such principles most states enact laws to cover are the protection of property and personal security. In On The Take, Chambliss argues that government agencies and officials engage in blatant disregard for the law. Many like the CIA, FBI, and NSC commit acts defined as criminal by U.S. laws in order to achieve goals they believe justify illegal activity. In answering why such agencies and officials of the government would disregard the law, Chambliss (2003) argues, “The answer lies ...