They both take advantage of the political system and rely on some kind of information or advantage the populace does not enjoy. One simply is (or at least was) legal, while the other is not. That is perhaps the biggest difference between the two. One is legitimate or at least accepted, and the other clearly is not.

             It is hard to disagree with Plunkitt's general philosophy, especially the way he puts it in this monograph. He attempts to make himself common and even "down home" with his language and dialect. He wants the public to identify with him and so approve of his use of honest graft. However, it is clear he is a shrewd and calculating businessman, and that his use of honest graft is only benefiting himself. Today, Plunkitt would be seen as an inside trader, and would be censured for taking advantage of the system he so passionately defends in this monograph. He is not honest and he is not moral, and while he seems charming in his discussion, it is clear he is only out for himself. In that, it is quite difficult to agree with his way of seeing graft. He is a crook, put quite simply, and what he sees is not "opportunity," it is graft, pure and simple, and no graft is ever honest. Graft means someone wins and someone loses, and usually, the loss is at the expense of something important. Plunkitt may see it as playing the odds, but the other players have no choice in the matter. Even a gambler can place his bet and choose not to place another. However, Plunkitt, by using the system as he does, takes away that choice. His opponents have no opportunity to engage in honest graft themselves, because he always beats them to it. His graft depends on his having an advantage over his opponents, and that is totally the opposite of fair and honest business. Therefore, I would have to disagree with Senator Plunkitt. There is no such thing as "honest" graft - it is just semantics that mean one person wins at the expense of another.