Late last year, The Economist ran a very interesting article on government corruption, "How to grease a palm: Corruption has its own elaborate etiquette." What’s most interesting about the article is its conclusion. Amidst renewed concern over the supposed "culture of corruption" in Washington, D.C., we think the article is worth another look.
The article focuses primarily on the widespread street-level government corruption that plagues the developing world, but the U.S. does not escape unscathed:
"Rich Westerners may not think of their societies as plagued by corruption. But the definition of bribery clearly differs from person to person. A New Yorker might pity the third-world businessman who must pay bribes just to keep his shop open. But the same New Yorker would not think twice about slipping the maître d’ $50 to sneak into a nice restaurant without a reservation. Poor people the world over are most infuriated by the casual corruption of the elites rather than by the underpaid, "tip"-seeking soldier or functionary.
"Indeed, in the world’s richest economy, what many see as simple bribery is an integral part of lawmaking. In Washington, DC, it is accepted that a lobbyist’s generous campaign contribution to a crucial congressman may help to steer some spending to the lobbyist’s client.
"But proving corruption requires proving the intent to exchange one favour for another. Brent Wilkes, named as a co-conspirator in the bribery case of a Californian congressman, told the New York Times about a lesson he was taught early in his lobbying career: a cheque must never be handed over at the same time as a lobbying pitch is made. Much better to wait and do it in a hallway later. Proving intent in a courtroom is famously hard to do, so few such exchanges result in convictions. But many ordinary Americans are aware of what is going on. No surprise, then, that Congress is, by some measures, the least popular branch of government."
In the absence of a true quid pro quo, we’re disinclined to consider campaign contributions "bribes," even if delivered by lobbyists. Of course, some of these transactions are corrupt and something should be done about it. But what is the solution? The "reform" crowd’s solution to corruption, invariably, is more regulation.
The problem with regulatory solutions is that many of them combat (or, more often, conceal) only the symptoms of corruption rather than the root cause. Indeed, the Supreme Court has endorsed this approach, by finding a compelling state interest in combating the "appearance of corruption." This approach, however, is not only ineffective, it can be pernicious, because the "appearance of corruption" is an important heuristic for citizens in a free society.
Like a canary in a mineshaft, the "appearance of corruption" gives us of early warning of impending danger: actual corruption. Government attempts to combat the "appearance of corruption" are no different than a mine foreman throwing a blanket over the canary’s cage, tricking the workers into toiling under increasingly dangerous conditions, all under the guise of promoting confidence in their joint enterprise. Workers in such a situation would immediately see through the deception and be outraged. They would demand to see that canary–their lives might depend on it–and reject as wholly illegitimate any attempt to conceal it from them. If the canary died, they would demand a solution to the root cause of the problem.
So what is the root cause of corruption? And what is the solution? As the article concludes:
"Among the many factors that determine the level of corruption in a country, one stands out. Whether it takes the shape of an American congressman dispensing a $2 trillion budget or a horde of petty officials administering a Bible-sized rulebook, where there is a lot of government, there is a lot of bribery. Corruption thus offers yet another confirmation of the dictum attributed to Thomas Jefferson that ‘the government is best which governs least.’"
If Jefferson were alive today, we doubt he’d be surprised by the level of corruption (or its appearance) that has followed the explosive growth of our government. And we’re certain he would reject "solutions" to the problem that trample on the liberty of speech protected by the First Amendment. Instead, if forced to live with a government as large as ours, we think Jefferson would advise constant vigilance. Constant vigilance may not be easy, but it is the cost of big government.
(HT: Reason: Hit & Run)
