Page 73 - Freedom in the world_Neat

Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana had frequently demanded bribes in exchange
for promoting business ventures in Africa. In May 2006, as part of a corruption probe,
Jefferson was filmed accepting a $100,000 bribe from a Virginia businessman whom the
FBI had wired. Later, upon searching Jefferson’s home, federal agents discovered $90,000
in cash hidden in his freezer.2 Despite that case and a number of less egregious and less
well-documented allegations of wrongdoing by members of the Democratic Party, the
issue of corruption was generally a boon for Democrats and burden for Republicans during
the 2006 campaign season.
In the elections, the Democratic Party managed to seize control of both houses of
Congress and win a majority of the country’s governorships. While this feat was no doubt
the result of a confluence of several different factors, much of the early analysis suggested
that a widespread perception of corruption contributed significantly to the electoral result.
The National Review, for instance, pointed out that one-third of the 29 House seats lost by
Republicans were in districts where the incumbent was tied in some way to a corruption
scandal.3 The seats formerly held by Tom DeLay, Robert Ney, Mark Foley, and Curt Weldon
all fell to Democratic candidates in 2006. Moreover, according to the exit polls, corruption
was rated “extremely important” by more voters than any other issue.
Opinion polls and news editorials suggest that the recent scandals have fueled both a
popular perception that corruption is rampant in American politics and a growing cynicism
toward the ethical disposition of political officials in the United States.4While these select
incidents of political corruption certainly warrant the attention, ire, and calls for reform that
they have elicited, they do not provide a reasonable basis for a perception of widespread
corruption. To the contrary, in each of the recent cases, various political institutions have
worked to identify incidents of corruption and hold the culprits responsible for their
actions.
By world and historic standards, today’s America is exceptionally free of corruption. The
business of the U.S. government is conducted with a high degree of transparency. Any
individual is able to access nonclassified government information, and the nation’s press
corps reports unabashedly on questionable political practices. The rule of law is firmly
established and enforced by a capable bar and an independent judiciary that, given
evidence of corruption, do not shrink from prosecuting either government officials or the
most powerful private individuals. In fact, some argue that the problem is not a lack of
tools to investigate and adjudicate corruption, but an excess of overzealous prosecutors
armed with seemingly endless funds and an array of instruments with which to pursue
whomever they please.5 Nonetheless, when the range of behaviors that can be construed
as corrupt is expanded to include ostensibly legal actions that would be widely viewed as
misuse of government office, corruption is a significant problem in American politics.
In particular, the appointment and hiring of political cronies, the extraordinary influence of
embedded special interests, and the use of no-bid government contracts to unfairly benefit
a select few raise serious concerns. Additionally, although Congress has taken a few steps
to limit the misuse of public office and prohibit practices that may give rise to the
appearance of corruption, the federal government has more often failed to respond—or
acted too slowly or inadequately—to public cries for reform. In some cases, the
government has acted in a way that erodes political institutions meant to ensure
responsive politics, limit favoritism, and protect government whistleblowers.

Page 73 of 168