A Realistic Proposal for Corruption Reform

In the United States government, there has recently been a crisis involving a significant proportion of the higher elected representatives on both sides of the political divide. Regardless of the political repercussions, and the political consequences of various ideas about reform, there is a simple question that faces the American public: how can we address this corruption?

The question of lobby reform, as distinct from the problem of earmarks, which everyone seems resigned to abandon, is not a simple one: how can a country founded on the idea of freedom of expression, which is embodied by the ability to put political support behind whatever candidate a person wishes, restrict how money is spent to support those candidates? The simple explanation, of course, is that there is a balance between support of a candidate, and bribing a candidate which needs to be maintained. Support is allowed, bribery is not. Separating the two is, of course, not particularly simple. But these are questions that can be aired in public, and whether a $20 meal limit is agreed upon or not is largely irrelevant to the larger problem, which is that as long as corruption is possible, it will be sought out. We can make limits anywhere, but as long as we know that people would be so much more successful if these laws are ignored, we cannot simply attempt to legislate adherence to expected moral norms. Bribery is a economically efficient solution, and as we know, economics will dictate corporate policy, and corporate policy, it seems, dictates the moral stance of our politicians.

So the question becomes not about how to define corruption, but how to fight it. And this is a question that has to be fought in terms of balance of powers, not in terms of legislation; how can we make it in someone's best interest that this not happen? The answer, I think, needs to be addressed in terms of the acceptability of political corruption to the elected officials themselves. Without getting into the issue of who, exactly, we think is suitable to jobs requiring the exercise of power, we should address the reality of who it is that actually occupies those positions. In light of this, I think the most elegant solution is one in which the policing is done by the parties involved themselves.

The solution, then, is to legislate a penalty for accepting anything which violates the ethics standards chosen by the ethics committee. A set a hard rules about what can be accepted, in what amounts, and a blanket statement that anything else accepted is illegal. The important point here is a monetary fine equal to twice the market value of the goods received to be levied on the person who accepted the illegal good or service. (And not the fund which accepted it. There is the same penalty to the candidate if an aide accepts the money on his behalf, and it will automatically enforce an accounting of who accepts what money - each donation must have a single person who is willing to accept the gift on behalf of either a politician, or a political party or fund. The Rules about separation of politicians and other political bodies will, of course, need to be enforced.) The value of the gift which was illegally received would go to whomever alerted the ethics commission to the illegal transaction, which might include the candidate, thereby negating any possibility of a need to hide any illegal transactions, rather placing the burden on the politician to simply pay for the gift received. This would also incentify others to be alert for where any suspicious money comes from. The rest of the money, I would assume, can help fund the budget for the department or judges whose time would be spent evaluating the value of the gifts, or possibly a fund to help alleviate the massive current expense of campaigning, one of the key factors driving costs, and therefore bribes, so high in the first place.

Politicians are not angels, and we shouldn't expect them to be - what we should expect is that once something becomes too costly for people to be interested in it, it will miraculously cease. And that incentification is probably the only thing that can make it happen.