A substantial amount of what people call "corruption" in American politics is instead two cherished principles of American society being fundamentally at odds as a result of our representative system. We want everyone to have an equal say in government, but we also want people to be able to freely express their political opinions.
Why is it wrong for an environmental group to be able to draft a proposed law to give legislators something concrete to work with? Why is it wrong for an industry organization, which usually knows way more about the specific industry than the lay public, to educate legislators about their industry? Why is it wrong for a rich person to buy media time to convince voters of his views?
These activities aren't inherently wrong. They're not inherently corruption. We might not like the consequences resulting from these activities. Often, we just don't like the people engaging in these activities. But as long as they're directed at convincing people (either voters or politicians), as opposed to giving out personal benefits, these activities aren't corruption.
What can be wrong is someone's selfish interest affecting negatively everyone else. I.e. acting not for the sake of making a useful law for the public, but acting for the sake of making a useful law for someone's particular pocket at the expense of the public. It's very clearly wrong, but how exactly this can be prevented is a good question.
The thorny issue of lobbying vs. democracy shares a lot of overlap with the realities of legal costs and the justice system. On the one hand, it's clearly unjust that the party who can afford more legal fees has a strong advantage, both in and out of the courtroom; on the other hand, it's also unjust to not allow someone to choose their own legal counsel, and how they make their case.
Perhaps those specific examples aren't corruption, but this could also include PAC donations, insider market info and fancy dinners and junkets. I don't see why this be an all or nothing affair. It seems it is only this way because the beneficiaries are the ones who make the rules.
Comments
A substantial amount of what people call "corruption" in American politics is instead two cherished principles of American society being fundamentally at odds as a result of our representative system. We want everyone to have an equal say in government, but we also want people to be able to freely express their political opinions.
Why is it wrong for an environmental group to be able to draft a proposed law to give legislators something concrete to work with? Why is it wrong for an industry organization, which usually knows way more about the specific industry than the lay public, to educate legislators about their industry? Why is it wrong for a rich person to buy media time to convince voters of his views?
These activities aren't inherently wrong. They're not inherently corruption. We might not like the consequences resulting from these activities. Often, we just don't like the people engaging in these activities. But as long as they're directed at convincing people (either voters or politicians), as opposed to giving out personal benefits, these activities aren't corruption.
What can be wrong is someone's selfish interest affecting negatively everyone else. I.e. acting not for the sake of making a useful law for the public, but acting for the sake of making a useful law for someone's particular pocket at the expense of the public. It's very clearly wrong, but how exactly this can be prevented is a good question.
The thorny issue of lobbying vs. democracy shares a lot of overlap with the realities of legal costs and the justice system. On the one hand, it's clearly unjust that the party who can afford more legal fees has a strong advantage, both in and out of the courtroom; on the other hand, it's also unjust to not allow someone to choose their own legal counsel, and how they make their case.
Perhaps those specific examples aren't corruption, but this could also include PAC donations, insider market info and fancy dinners and junkets. I don't see why this be an all or nothing affair. It seems it is only this way because the beneficiaries are the ones who make the rules.
It isn't in the public interest. When it is in the public interest it is only incidental.
But that happens a lot. Campaign contributions, securing lucrative post-public-service jobs on K-Street or elsewhere, etc.
I think a counter-argument along with the down-votes would be appropriate.