Political corruption

:This article is about political corruption. For other uses, see Corruption (disambiguation)

Types of abuse

Political corruption encompasses abuses by government officials such as embezzlement and nepotism, as well as abuses linking public and private actors such as bribery, extortion, influence peddling, and fraud.

Related Topics:
Embezzlement - Nepotism - Bribery - Extortion - Influence peddling - Fraud

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Bribery: Bribe-takers and bribe-givers

It takes two to create corruption: giving and taking bribes. In some countries the culture of corruption extends to every aspect of public life, making it extremely difficult to stay in business without resorting to bribes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The most common bribe-giving countries are not in general the same as the most common bribe-taking countries.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Graft

Graft is the act of a politician personally benefitting from public funds in a way other than prescribed by law (obviously excluding a politician's salary unless seen from the most hard-lined anarchist). Graft is comparable to insider trading in business. New York's Senator George Washington Plunkitt once famously claimed that there was a difference between "honest" and "dishonest" graft. The classical example of graft is a politician using his knowledge of zoning and decision making to purchase land which he knows his political organization is interested in developing on, and then selling it at a significant profit to that organization. Large gifts from parties within the government also qualify as graft, and most countries have laws against it. (For example, any gift over $200 value made to the President of the United States is considered to be a gift to the Office of the Presidency and not to the President himself. The outgoing President must buy it if he wants to take it with him.)

Related Topics:
Anarchist - Insider trading - George Washington Plunkitt

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Campaign contributions and soft money

In the political arena, it is difficult to prove corruption, but impossible to prove its absence. For this reason, there are often rumours about many politicians.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Politicians are placed in apparently compromising positions because of their need to solicit financial contributions for their campaigns. Often, they then appear to be acting in the interests of those parties that fund them, giving rise to talk of political corruption.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Supporters of politicians assert that it is entirely coincidental that many politicians appear to be acting in the interests of those who fund them. Cynics wonder why these organizations fund politicians at all, if they get nothing for their money? It should be noted that in the United States firms, especially large ones, often fund all major parties, though most of them favour one party over the other.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Because of the implications of corporations funding politicians, such as the perceived threat that these corporations are simply buying the votes of elected officials, certain countries, such as France, ban altogether the corporate funding of political parties. Because of the possible circumvention of this ban with respect to the funding of political campaigns, France also imposes maximum spending caps on campaigning; candidates that have exceeded those limits, or that have handed misleading accounting reports, risk being declared to have lost the election, or even be prevented from running in future elections. In addition, the government funds political parties according to their successes in elections. In some countries, political parties are run solely off subscription (membership fees).

Related Topics:
France - Subscription

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Even legal measures such as these have been argued to be legalised corruption, in that they often favour the political status quo. Minor parties and independents often argue that efforts to rein in the influence of contributions do little more than protect the major parties with guaranteed public funding while constraining the possibility of private funding by outsiders. In these instances, officials are legally taking money from the public coffers for their election campaigns to guarantee that they will continue to hold their well-paid and influenctial positions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~