http://www.aolnews.com/money/article/perceived-us-corruption-grows-amid-financial-scandals/19690043
notes that, in a ranking of countries of the world according to corruption (at least as defined in this study) shows the U.S. as having slipped to No. 22 (with No. 1 being the least corrupt). The U.S. is remarkably free of bribery in public office compared to other countries; but
the past year of headline-making investigations into Wall Street practices and associated government lapses has brought to light a narrative of unbridled greed that has undermined confidence in public institutions and stoked perceptions of corruption here.
Another factor, as noted in the article, is the increasingly unrestrained and covert role of private money in the political system -- especially since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in January, which former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor criticized as a threat to judicial independence and checks on campaign spending.
Update, May 27, 2011
Here I mention the Citizens United decision. I gave an incorrect impression, that that decision permits corporate contributions directly to candidates. It did not; rather it permits corporations to fund, for example, advertising on issues rather than candidates. (Thus we see TV "public service announcements" that advocate for or against a certain position or proposed law, and their sponsorship by corporations or industry trade groups is disguised by a statement such as "Paid for by Citizens for Such-and-Such.") However, in today's news, a judge has ruled that corporate contributions to candidates are legal.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
No comments:
Post a Comment