Corruption in American politics, legal and not

"Corruption" is a ubiquitous word in politics. The best general excuse that corrupt politicians have for their own corruption is the idea that “all politicians are corrupt”. Which generally means, “I don’t care if the party or politicians I support are corrupt”.

In the neoliberal era of Reagan/Thatcher/TINA (there is no alternative), it’s important to differentiate between illegal and legal corruption. The US and other countries have laws against bribery that outlaw politicians and public officials from taking money or other gifts of value in exchange for a favorable vote or other specified actions in their official role. That is known as a quid pro quo arrangement, to use the one Latin phrase that Donald Trump was forced to learn. Bribery laws, of course, also cover activities of private businesses as well.

Straight-up bribery is illegal and by any definition corruption. However, if there is a legal way for someone to pay a politician, for instance by making a legal contribution to their campaign funds, there can be a tacit quid pro quo arrangement that is entirely legal. (If the quid pro quo is explicit, doing the payment through campaign contributions would still be a crime.)

So there are also laws limiting campaign contributions and campaign expenditures. In the US, the Supreme Court has seriously undercut many of those laws, most notoriously with their Citizens United (2010) decision. Individuals are able to spend as much of their own money on political campaigns as they like. Thus, we have billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg spending huge sums of their own money in the current Presidential race. And “independent” expenditures through political actions committees (PACs) allow candidates to effectively evade any spending limits or even full accountability for their campaigns’ spending.

Campaign spending laws have to be periodically updated to remain effective. The history of PACs provides an important example. Michael Levy gives a brief history of PACs (Political action committee Britannica Online 2018):

The first PAC was created in 1944 by the Congress of Industrial Organizations, which sought to raise funds to assist the reelection of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt. PACs were an ancillary part of political campaigns in the United States until the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (and its amendment in 1974). Ostensibly, the law was established to reduce the influence of money in campaigns by setting strict limits on the amount a particular corporation, union, or private individual could give to a candidate. By soliciting smaller contributions from a much larger number of individuals, however, PACs were able to circumvent these limitations and provide substantial funds for candidates. Following the reforms, the number of PACs proliferated, from about 600 in the early 1970s to more than 4,000 by 2010. With this proliferation came a massive escalation in the cost of running for federal office in the United States. [my emphasis]

Campaign contribution and spending laws have to be specific and political campaings will seek to find legal ways around the limits. Legal is legal.

So it's important to distinguish between illegal, de jure corruption and legal, de facto corruption. Yes, identifying the latter in a meaningful way requires some judgment. Welcome to adulthood.

There's currently a flap, on Twitter at least, about whether calling Joe Biden and other corporate Democrats "corrupt" for relying on large campaign contributions from wealthy donors is naughty or not. There's nothing unusual about this. Candidate X or his campaign accuses Candidate Y of shady dealings, and Candidate Y is expected to be shocked, shocked that Candidate X would question her integrity. This stuff is normal in campaigns, however unpleasant it may be to partisans. Again, welcome to adulthood.

This is normal campaign stuff. But Democrats have an unwholesome habit of turrning these short-term slogans and claims into quasi-theological arguments. Like the current Super-Woke vs. Sanders-democratic-socialism argument, which is so far a tired reply of 2016.

Ryan Grim did a reality-based piece last yearh on what is really problematic about Joe Biden's family businesses, which of course is not what the Republicans are in Rumpelstilzchen mode over: Joe Biden’s Family Has Been Cashing in on His Career for Decades. Democrats Need to Acknowledge That. The Intercept 10/09/2019