Corruption is the key issue that drives the US presidential election
this year. But in what forms could corruption possibly exist in a country which
ranks well (#16) on the Corruption Perception Index? Even for the scandals that
have surfaced, justice was served swiftly. Take for instance, the events that
led up to the resignation of Rep. Aaron Schock in 2015. Redecorating his office
to resemble a room straight out of Downton
Abbey using taxpayers’ money fits the standard definition of corruption as
‘misuse of public office for private gain’.[i]
Investigation into this issue by the Office of Congressional Ethics led to the
revelation of his use of campaign funds on private jets and tickets for a
sold-out Katy Perry concert, evidence of both provided by his own Instagram
account.[ii] Misuse
of taxpayers’ money and campaign funds is a major form of corruption in US,
which is classified as an ‘Influence Market’ by Johnston.[iii]
If that seems too frivolous for your definition of a political
corruption scandal, consider this case: Republican Rep. David Rivera funded a
shadow campaign against his competitor Joe Garcia, by privately funding another
Democract candidate Justin Lamar Sternad.[iv]
Sternad was made to lie about this illegal campaign cash. This is not a case of
outright bribery. However, this undermines the foundational trust citizens have
on the electoral process, by compromising the necessary political competition.
The subsequent case against Riviera and Sternad was not on the impropriety of
this gesture, but for lying about the source of funds. Misuse of campaign funds
is not as unequivocal as the misuse of taxpayers’ money. Johnston views this
widespread unease about the system being rigged by corporate forces as fitting
the classical notion of corruption.[v]
It is through this lens that we need to view the Citizens United
ruling in 2010, which approved unlimited campaign spending, in the forms of
advertisements or otherwise, by corporate and non-profit organisations. Even
though more money does not guarantee a victory, these are powerful tools that
can be used to control conversations before an election. Controlling the debate
is to displace the keystone of democracy. In his 90-page dissent, Justice
Stevens argued that corruption needed to be viewed as beyond strict
quid-pro-quo exchanges and that appearance of corruption was as severe an
offence.[vi] This
captures the essence of corruption imagined by Aristotle as decay or
disintegration, rather than as quantifiable instances of bribery.
No comments:
Post a Comment