Controversial position: There's nothing wrong with corruption in politics

[muon2]

One thing I am seeing here is an extension of the meaning of political corruption beyond that found in the dictionary. Here is what the Oxford Dictionary writes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Other dictionaries may include illegal behavior as well in the definition.

Note that the meaning of corruption does not include unequal access to power by the rich, if that unequal access is neither dishonest nor frauduent. Unequal access is an issue separate from corruption. Trying to eliminate corruption when conflating it with unequal access confuses the two issues and makes dealing with either of them harder.

[muon2]

I still stand by the distinction I made. I think there is a significant difference between a quid pro quo bribe or extortion and a donation to support candidates with ideas that match one's own. Here are two cases involving a large donation that I will assume fall within the legal limits for the particular state.

Case 1: A governor demands a $50K campaign donation from a hospital before signing a bill that would provide a $5M grant to the hospital. It's a dishonest use of the political office unrelated to the policies held out to the voters who elected the governor. To me that's corruption and should be prosecuted as an illegal act.

Case 2: A legislator runs on a pro-labor platform and receives a $50K campaign donation from a large union. In the term after the election a lobbyist from the union walks the legislator through a controversial bill that will help the union secure $5M in labor contracts from the state, and the legislator agrees to vote for the bill. Based on the positions espoused by the legislator during the campaign, it was pretty clear that the legislator would vote for a bill like that, and there was no dishonesty to the voters. There was certainly influential access by the union but I don't see that as corruption.

One can debate the merits of large donations to campaigns, and how to fund campaigns when donations are limited. But case 1 could have been about $50K in personal gifts and case 2 could have been about professional lobbyists when no donation was made, and campaign finance laws wouldn't come into play. Even so case 1 would still be about corruption and case 2 about the influence of wealthy interests.

[muon2]

One thing I am seeing here is an extension of the meaning of political corruption beyond that found in the dictionary. Here is what the Oxford Dictionary writes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Other dictionaries may include illegal behavior as well in the definition.

Note that the meaning of corruption does not include unequal access to power by the rich, if that unequal access is neither dishonest nor frauduent. Unequal access is an issue separate from corruption. Trying to eliminate corruption when conflating it with unequal access confuses the two issues and makes dealing with either of them harder.

This is abject nonsense. Maybe if you're an Illinois legislator this sort of equivocating makes sense but the average American recognizes that there's something venal/disgusting about what you have termed, in a very neutral way, to be "unequal access". Politicians claim to represent the public and to uphold the public interest; when unequal access is given by politicians to rent-seeking interests, that's dishonest, a violating of norms of decency. This is why politicians are despised.

Dishonesty is when someone like Cory Booker claims that he's voting against drug importations from Canada because of safety concerns. That doesn't convince anyone; we all know why he made that vote. If politicians were honest about the fact that they were rewarding rent-seeking interests, they'd be punished for it; their obfuscation is effective but, simultaneously, is why it is considered to be corrupt.

The definition I cited includes dishonesty as a form of corruption. But not all acceptance of money by those in power gives rise to dishonesty. I thought my case 2 illustrated unequal access that did not involve dishonest behavior.

My point is that these are different problems and they have different solutions. Throwing them both into one bucket does little to address either.