"Lind's Law": The lower the level of government, the more crooked & inefficient

[BrainGlutton]

From "A Horde of Lilliputian Governments," by Michael Lind, published in The New Leader (now defunct) May 5, 1997:

Anyone who imagines that local governments are efficient has never worked for one. On the basis of employment experience in local, state, and federal governments, I long ago formulated Lind's Law: The lower the level of government, the more crooked and inefficient the public employees. If you think Washington is full of sleazy, back-slapping good old boys, you should get to know the members of a county commission. And the typical state driver's license bureau makes the Federal postal workers look like models of Prussian discipline and Singaporean competence. The revolt against the Federal government would quickly fade if C-SPAN turned its cameras for a few years on state legislatures, school boards and county councils.

Anybody have any reason to think otherwise?

[fumster]

I've always thought that. I'm puzzled by the 'local is better' crowd.

[Odesio]

We certainly have plenty examples of local municipalities being corrupt. In Gould, Arkansas the town council passed a law banning a particular group from talking with the mayor and then took it a step further by making it illegal for any group to form with the purpose of talking about the town without first getting permission from the town council. We've all heard of corrupt city government officials stealing money, small town police forces which exist for the sole purpose of fleecing drivers by issuing speeding tickets and I'm sure we can all find more stories about city/county/state corruption. Part of the reason we can find more stories is because there are way more governments than the Feds here in the United States.

How many different governments do we have in the United States? According to Wikipedia we have the following. (Honestly, it's hard finding a straight answer on how many city/town governments the U.S. has.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_g..._United_States

Federal: 1
State: 50
County: 3,034
Municipal: 19,429
Township: 16,504
School District: 13,506

I'm not sure what is meant by a local government being inefficient. A lot of people seem to miss that it is the local government which makes the most decisions which you feel on a daily basis. Everything from where to put new roads to how schools should be funded are decided on a local basis. It makes more sense for a lot of those decisions to be made on a local level. What does a guy from Austin, Texas know about repairing roads in New York City?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

From "A Horde of Lilliputian Governments," by Michael Lind, published in The New Leader (now defunct) May 5, 1997:



Anybody have any reason to think otherwise?

I'm more interested in data than "reason". Got any?

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Anybody have any reason to think otherwise?

Yes. At every level of government there's some corruption. The reason why many people would prefer to have decisions made at local levels is that there's more possibility of the people exercising control over small governments than big ones. In my county there are about 10,000 votes cast in a typical election. That means that if I and a few hundred of my fellows in this county wish to effect some sort of change in the county government, we have a chance of doing so. On the other hand, the same group of people would have no chance at all of effecting some sort of change in Congress.

[Martin Hyde]

Based on anecdote I'd agree smaller government officers are more generally corrupt. But I too wouldn't mind seeing some factual citations to back that up, because we all know that anecdote isn't evidence.

Additionally, the reason people like local government over centralized government is it allows local concerns to be heard by people who are directly accountable by local voters. If all county and municipal officers were say, appointed by the governor of the state, then a lot of voters would feel they didn't get to have any real say on the government officials who had the most immediate and direct effect on their day to day lives. Something that always shocks me is how passionate people get about national political issues while ignoring local ones, a lot of the stuff that really impacts your day to day life is actually handled by local government, but it's "un-sexy" stuff like zoning issues, property tax levies, and etc. But these things can have a real material impact on you on a day to day basis whereas a lot of Federal issues don't.

[Martin Hyde]

Also, while I like local government I've always been opposed to a few offices being elected.

I don't think County Sheriffs anywhere should be an elected position, they should be appointed by county elected government from the ranks of the professional police force. No judges should be elected, ever. Nor should magistrates or prosecutors.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I'm more interested in data than "reason". Got any?

I have no data but Lind's subjective anecdotal impressions quoted in the OP. Don't know if anyone has ever done an actual study on this.

[ralph124c]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Also, while I like local government I've always been opposed to a few offices being elected.

I don't think County Sheriffs anywhere should be an elected position, they should be appointed by county elected government from the ranks of the professional police force. No judges should be elected, ever. Nor should magistrates or prosecutors.

Really? At least with elected judges, you can remove bad ones. Here in MA, judges are appointed. Which means that 90% are failed politicians. They serve till they die (in many cases), and a senile judge is a big problem. The sheriffs are a special problem-many are very corrupt. The late sheriff of Middlesex County (James DePaolo) committed suicide after an investigation of his activities revealed that he sold jobs in his office, and hosted "parties"-where deputies and office employees were "urged" to "make contributions". DiPaolo was also diverting Federal Grant money into his friends pockets-a real standup guy!

[Typo Knig]

A counterexample: Fairfax County, Virginia. Little-to-no corruption, efficient and well-run government for just over a million people with very few layers. In my native New Jersey the same population would be covered by a county or three, and dozens of "cities", townships, boroughs, etc. We also have one of the best school districts in the US. Taxes are high, but things are run well.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

We also have one of the best school districts in the US. Taxes are high, but things are run well.

So you basically live in Canada.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Yes. At every level of government there's some corruption. The reason why many people would prefer to have decisions made at local levels is that there's more possibility of the people exercising control over small governments than big ones. In my county there are about 10,000 votes cast in a typical election. That means that if I and a few hundred of my fellows in this county wish to effect some sort of change in the county government, we have a chance of doing so. On the other hand, the same group of people would have no chance at all of effecting some sort of change in Congress.

But it also means a hundred or so nut cases can effect change as well. Maybe they think WiFi causes cancer and decide to ban it within city limits, or compel everyone to carry a gun, or ban pet stores. It took the Supreme Court and President calling out the National Guard just to force local government to let black kids walk to school in peace.

[al27052]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

A counterexample: Fairfax County, Virginia. Little-to-no corruption, efficient and well-run government for just over a million people with very few layers. In my native New Jersey the same population would be covered by a county or three, and dozens of "cities", townships, boroughs, etc. We also have one of the best school districts in the US. Taxes are high, but things are run well.

You also have a wealthy and highly-educated population. That helps.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by fumster

But it also means a hundred or so nut cases can effect change as well. Maybe they think WiFi causes cancer and decide to ban it within city limits, or compel everyone to carry a gun, or ban pet stores. It took the Supreme Court and President calling out the National Guard just to force local government to let black kids walk to school in peace.

Well, for things like not letting blacks go to school that is a good example as to where the Federal government needs to come in to trump local government--and it did. That's not really an argument to toss all local governments on the dust bin of history and go to a system in which a few powerful politicians appoint 99% of the rest of the offices in the whole country.

Dumb regulations like the San Francisco pet store ban or the Georgia(?) compulsory gun law are examples of unwise legislation (and in the compulsory gun carry probably unenforceable), the job of a citizenry is to decide if such unwise legislation should result in politicians being thrown out of office. It doesn't make me think those politicians should have been appointed instead.

[Typo Knig]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

So you basically live in Canada.

Naw, we still pay out the wazoo for health care.

[Typo Knig]

Originally Posted by al27052

You also have a wealthy and highly-educated population. That helps.

Yes it does, quite a bit. Although there's a chicken-and-egg problem, and Fairfax County has its issues with poverty, gangs, etc. And why is Fairfax County so much better run than some neighboring jurisdictions, even with similar populations? I suspect several dissertations can be written on that topic.

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by fumster

But it also means a hundred or so nut cases can effect change as well.

True enough. Our way of government is premised on the belief that, all things considered, it's better when government is responsive to the people. Sometimes the people will get hysterical and push through stupid laws, but on the whole it's still better when they have power.

Another point about lower levels of government is that it's easier to get away from them when they make bad decisions. If your city government runs a 12-billion-dollar debt, you can move to the suburbs. If your state creates a 500-billion-dollar shortfall, you can move to a different state, but that's probably going to be a lot more inconvenient. If the federal government runs up a debt of 15.7 billion dollars, the only way to get away from it is to leave the country, which is very expensive and difficult.

[al27052]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

Yes it does, quite a bit. Although there's a chicken-and-egg problem, and Fairfax County has its issues with poverty, gangs, etc. And why is Fairfax County so much better run than some neighboring jurisdictions, even with similar populations? I suspect several dissertations can be written on that topic.

Well, I know that Greensboro, NC, which I grew up near and lived next door to for many years, has a lot of educated transplants. However, these transplants do not participate in local government, which means that the perhaps less-educated, less-racially-sensitive, and perhaps less-competent local good-ol'-boys runs things by default.

I think the reason the transplants don't participate is because they figure they'll be transferred by their companies in a few years anyway, or they'll take another job in another city when they get downsized, etc.. I am contrasting that with DC, in which people are more likely to stay put.

Are the other counties around Fairfax run by the local good-ol'-boys?

If not, I have no idea why Fairfax is run better, other than pure luck.

[Algher]

Since we are on anecdotes, I have seen corruption at every level. The national stuff is more sophisticated, but the corruption is there nonetheless. Its like sales guys - a rep selling tanks to the Army is the same type of guy selling used cars in hicksville. They are both buying dinners, glossing over problems, and doing whatever it takes to close the deal. One might have a better suit, but if you distill them down to their essence - they are the same.

I also like the ability to make a difference locally with City Council and School Board members in my contacts.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by fumster

It took the Supreme Court and President calling out the National Guard just to force local government to let black kids walk to school in peace.

The weird thing is that other parts of Arkansas (rural areas) integrated before Brown vs. the Board of Education without any of the same problems experienced in Little Rock.

[Algher]

Originally Posted by Algher

Since we are on anecdotes, I have seen corruption at every level. The national stuff is more sophisticated, but the corruption is there nonetheless. Its like sales guys - a rep selling tanks to the Army is the same type of guy selling used cars in hicksville. They are both buying dinners, glossing over problems, and doing whatever it takes to close the deal. One might have a better suit, but if you distill them down to their essence - they are the same.

I also like the ability to make a difference locally with City Council and School Board members in my contacts.

Re-reading this I realized something - I am also an example of corruption in a sense since I am someone with a louder voice who gets more love from the politicos.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Odesio

The weird thing is that other parts of Arkansas (rural areas) integrated before Brown vs. the Board of Education without any of the same problems experienced in Little Rock.

Perhaps because Little Rock was so high-profile and symbolic. But there might be a simpler explanation -- from what I've heard, in the Jim Crow South, the understood norms of race relations varied from county to county and town to town. Some places, AAs simply were not allowed after sundown; other places had little problem with them at all, all things considered; and there was a whole spectrum between.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Well, for things like not letting blacks go to school that is a good example as to where the Federal government needs to come in to trump local government--and it did. That's not really an argument to toss all local governments on the dust bin of history and go to a system in which a few powerful politicians appoint 99% of the rest of the offices in the whole country.

How about if they just appoint strawmen?

My point is that there seems to be a very strong desire by many to have more power at the local level, and that desire seems to run contrary to experience. Basing school funding on the size of the local tax base is beyond ludicrous, it is almost criminal. Not having a national curriculum is also silly when people move so often among states.

We'll always need local government, but I'd rather base the decision on their scope on pragmatism rather than ideology.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Perhaps because Little Rock was so high-profile and symbolic. But there might be a simpler explanation -- from what I've heard, in the Jim Crow South, the understood norms of race relations varied from county to county and town to town. Some places, AAs simply were not allowed after sundown; other places had little problem with them at all, all things considered; and there was a whole spectrum between.

There were two reasons why rural schools in Arkansas integrated before 1957. First, even if separate but equal wasn't equal you still had to maintain separate facilities. Some rural districts in Arkansas just couldn't afford separate facilities no matter how unequal they were (cost of teachers, administrators and maintenance). Second, many school districts read the writing on the wall and figured it was only a matter of time before they were forced to integrate anyway.

One intriguing possibility is that it was the Brown v. Board of Education that really sparked integration conflicts. Consider that other cities had integrated bus services (Baton Rogue, LA for example) without any of the difficulties experience in Montgomery, Alabama. The difference is that Baton Rogue integrated before the decision and Montgomery after. The Brown vs. Board made it possible for local demagogues to screech about integration and get elected. I'm not really making a case for local government here, am I?

[2sense]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

True enough. Our way of government is premised on the belief that, all things considered, it's better when government is responsive to the people. Sometimes the people will get hysterical and push through stupid laws, but on the whole it's still better when they have power.

Actually our way of government is premised on the belief that people are bright enough to pick smarter people to run things and after that they should leave well enough alone while those elites work things out. That's what separation of powers and checks and balances are about. What we have is a paternalistic democracy. One of the ways that power is kept in the hands of the power brokers is by dividing it up in so many ways. Regular people just don't have the time to monitor all the levels of government. Sure 100 motivated people are a force in local governments but moneyed interests are a force in every jurisdiction and the more the merrier.

Another point about lower levels of government is that it's easier to get away from them when they make bad decisions. If your city government runs a 12-billion-dollar debt, you can move to the suburbs.

Moving to the suburbs is the very reason for the dire situation in Detroit. Allowing people to move away from problems doesn't solve those problems. It merely puts more and more of a burden upon those who can least afford it: those too poor to move. If the suburbs were amalgamated into the city at the current urban tax rates then would Greater Detroit have any budget problem at all? I expect not. Due to the balkanization of government here in Allegheny County families with under $25,000 pay local income taxes ar an 18% higher rate and property taxes at a 10% higher millage than families making more than $150,000. Outside Allegheny County taxes are even lower and many residents there still enjoy the benefits of living near a large city without shouldering any of the cost.

So the proliferation of governmental entities is not a good thing. But that's not evidence that local governments are more corrupt. I would think that many of them are since there are many parts of the nation that have one party rule which breeds corruption. But overall, I'm not sure.

[2sense]

Originally Posted by Odesio

One intriguing possibility is that it was the Brown v. Board of Education that really sparked integration conflicts. Consider that other cities had integrated bus services (Baton Rogue, LA for example) without any of the difficulties experience in Montgomery, Alabama. The difference is that Baton Rogue integrated before the decision and Montgomery after.

Do you have a cite for this? I don't doubt you but would be interested in more info.

[Guinastasia]

Would Tammany Hall count?

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by 2sense

Do you have a cite for this? I don't doubt you but would be interested in more info.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1304163

Okay, they didn't quite end segregation on the buses but on the whole it was a lot calmer in Baton Rouge than it was two years later in Montgomery, AL. Whites in Baton Rogue were a lot more willing to play ball than the folks in Montgomery.

[handsomeharry]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

From "A Horde of Lilliputian Governments," by Michael Lind, published in The New Leader (now defunct) May 5, 1997:



Anybody have any reason to think otherwise?

I will offer that the smaller governments are easier to audit, but, equally, or less, corrupt.

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

I will offer that the smaller governments are easier to audit, but, equally, or less, corrupt.

I would disagree with that. I think that small governments often have incredibly uneven, irregular, and opaque finances because they are run by part-timers and have grown up organically from when the whole system was a ledger book kept in the town hall.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

A counterexample: Fairfax County, Virginia. Little-to-no corruption, efficient and well-run government for just over a million people with very few layers. In my native New Jersey the same population would be covered by a county or three, and dozens of "cities", townships, boroughs, etc. We also have one of the best school districts in the US. Taxes are high, but things are run well.

That's the main point of the article quoted in the OP: There are just too many little local governments in America, they could do with some systematic consolidation.

For my part, I think every MSA should have a single consolidated metro government. Cities Without Suburbs!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Would Tammany Hall count?

As a corrupt local government? Certainly, but aren't urban machine-politics and courthouse-rings mostly things of the past in America? I'm not talking about organized corruption here, only of corruption (and incompetence) finding multiplied opportunities in tiny local units.

[Musicat]

I don't agree with this thread's premise, based on my observation of local government in my geographical area. Since I videotape ALL county and town board meetings, that's a lot of observation.

The government officials I know are human like anyone else, which means they aren't perfect, but checks and balances seem to work well.

I notice that most citizens tend to ignore working local government bodies unless: (1) an item on the agenda directly affects them, or (2) if they perceive a gross corruption.

Which means that most of the time, the public meetings are poorly attended. But once we had a town chairman who was lining his pockets at public expense, and the hue and cry reached a fever pitch and the meetings were packed. Once he was thrown out, the attendance returned to normal (no one there).

That would seem to suggest that corruption cannot continue indefinitely.

Another factor for local governments: in a small town, everyone knows everyone else. One crook cannot remain hidden as much as in a larger town. This contradicts the OP's premise, too.

[Shagnasty]

There are some serious philosophical issues within this thread as well. I don't believe the premise to begin with even though there are certainly corrupt local governments. Everything I have ever seen in practical life is that the more local the better as general rule. It is impossible for people to understand all the issues that are not immediately in front of them. That applies from New York state where much of the state is rural yet New York City itself is a world-class city with its own issues. I wouldn't expect people even in that state to fully understand the concerns of their fellow state citizens let alone those of Alaskans, Louisianans, or Californians.

Movements towards more consolidated governments are almost always authoritarian in philosophy and usually quite inefficient in their blanket one-size-fits laws that are a necessary component of that. That is the exact opposite of what people like me want. Most importantly, with more local governments, everyone has the freedom of movement if they don't like the current environment. Larger governments limit those choices and that is a deal killer for me and most others.

The logical conclusion to larger and larger governments is a one-world government. That may sound appealing a few control freaks but to most of us don't want it and will fight to the death to prevent it. If that sounds straw-man argument, it doesn't seem like it to me. The U.S. is one of the largest countries on earth. Further tendencies towards centralization in the U.S. are just medium scale versions of the same thing.

Let's respect diversity of choices even within our own country or anyone else's for that matter. Making government diagrams look prettier because you don't understand the reasons they were set up they to begin with isn't the way to achieve anything worthwhile. There are probably good cases for consolidation to be made somewhere but it shouldn't be blanket philosophy. It is true control freak behavior that dictators throughout history loved to use usually with disastrous consequences. We need to respect individual and group differences.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by Musicat

That would seem to suggest that corruption cannot continue indefinitely.

Another factor for local governments: in a small town, everyone knows everyone else. One crook cannot remain hidden as much as in a larger town. This contradicts the OP's premise, too.

These two passages assume a couple of things: The corruption is known to people and the people are interested in rooting crooks out. It's just as likely that either the crook can get away with it without people noticing precisely because nobody cares about local matters, or people notice but let it go because "John Smith is a good ol' boy, I knew his momma."

The very fact that people are known to each other at the local level is a double-edged sword. Yes, it can hold people in power more directly accountable, but it can also excuse some horrific behavior. And who's to say the majority of the community isn't right there with the crook? If (note, I say if) the charges against Arpaio hold, then he's committed some pretty significant crimes, and he's popular down here. He gets elected easily, and if it hadn't been for the federal government looking into him, he'd have kept right on as he's been doing.

A person does not always act rationally, in their own best interests, and with full knowledge, yet that's always the underlying assumption in small-government thinking. And when you get down to the local level, it only takes a few busybodies with more time on their hands than most hardworking people to really mess with things.

I'm not saying local government is entirely bad or useless, but each level of government has its own pros and cons, and each is useful to shore up the weaknesses of the others. Tossing out federal or even state involvement removes some of the safety buffers on the drawbacks to local government.

[2sense]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

Movements towards more consolidated governments are almost always authoritarian in philosophy and usually quite inefficient in their blanket one-size-fits laws that are a necessary component of that. That is the exact opposite of what people like me want. Most importantly, with more local governments, everyone has the freedom of movement if they don't like the current environment. Larger governments limit those choices and that is a deal killer for me and most others.

Speaking only for myself I don't believe more authoritarian local government would be a good thing. What we need are simply fewer local governments. We need wider authority not broader authority, if you see what I mean. Freedom of movement is a great thing but we shouldn't encourage "anti-rent seeking". By that I mean trying to place as much of the burden of maintaining the infrastructure of your locale on others by strategically locating your residence in the lowest tax area. If people want to move to the far side of Beaver or Washington Counties and seek economic and social opportunities there, I think that's fine. What I object to is people moving to the near side of those counties to continue to work and play in Pittsburgh. That sort of freeloading should be discouraged.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

These two passages assume a couple of things: The corruption is known to people and the people are interested in rooting crooks out. It's just as likely that either the crook can get away with it without people noticing precisely because nobody cares about local matters, or people notice but let it go because "John Smith is a good ol' boy, I knew his momma."

In my example, that was certainly a factor. But more people were interested in rooting the crooks out than were related to the miscreant. The "rooting the crooks out" was exactly what seemed to gather the crowds for meetings that previously had few attendees.

It seems to rub many people the wrong way when there is obvious corruption, and if the corruption affects their pocketbooks, they are even more interested in cleaning it up.

In my example, there was a town chairman who discovered he could triple his income by volunteering to empty the dropboxes where fishermen left their $5 launch fees. Town ordinance said this task paid $40 for each time a box was emptied, but didn't specify how often it had to be done. Mr. "Forty Gordy" began emptying boxes far more than required, probably relieving the town of any cash that was deposited as well. Then he discovered that he didn't actually have to empty the boxes, just report that he did, and he earned another $40.

This went on for a while due to the brother-in-law relationship with others in the town, but once it came out in the open, relatives couldn't protect Forty Gordy from the town's wrath, because the fees came out of the town's pocket, and therefore the taxpayer's pockets.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Also, while I like local government I've always been opposed to a few offices being elected.

I don't think County Sheriffs anywhere should be an elected position, they should be appointed by county elected government from the ranks of the professional police force. No judges should be elected, ever. Nor should magistrates or prosecutors.

Agreed, for the most part. IMO, elected officials should be policymakers. And cops should not be that, and should be answerable to elected policymakers. Giving them an independent electoral mandate can result in . . . well, Arpaio.

As for judges, the important thing is not whether they are elected or appointed but whether, once on the bench, they are insulated from political pressure.

[Rhythmdvl]

If the law does hold, the death of local newspapers will make it worse. On the small scale, the Internet does not have nearly the reach that a town newspaper did.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Yes. At every level of government there's some corruption. The reason why many people would prefer to have decisions made at local levels is that there's more possibility of the people exercising control over small governments than big ones. In my county there are about 10,000 votes cast in a typical election. That means that if I and a few hundred of my fellows in this county wish to effect some sort of change in the county government, we have a chance of doing so. On the other hand, the same group of people would have no chance at all of effecting some sort of change in Congress.

This reasoning advances theory over practice, though. Voter turnout in state elections is far lower than that for federal elections, and voter turnout in local elections is an entire order of magnitude lower. Mayoral elections, for example, rarely draw more than a 10% turnout. In theory, local government is more accountable to the electorate. In practice, local government is accountable to no-one. If you want to address accountability in elections, get rid of the nonsensical primary system that gives New Hampshire and Iowa such ridiculous influence over presidential elections.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by fumster

I've always thought that. I'm puzzled by the 'local is better' crowd.

They may be bastards, but at least they're our bastards.

[Evil Captor]

I worked in local government for about a decade. In my opinion, it is less corrupt than state and federal government, not because local government officials are made of tougher moral fiber than state/fed officials, but because the stakes are considerably lower in local government. Local government officials typically make decisions that involve far less money than state/federal officials, therefore, there is less interest in them by monied interests.

That said, the real estate and business community movers and shakers tend to either 1) be the local government officials or 1) be very, very close to government officials. There is nothing innately wrong with that. The local government officials make decisions that directly impact their businesses on a regular basis. The folks working at WalMart or at the grocery store, not so much. Still, the almost inevitable result is, if there's a conflict of interest between the bulk of the voters and the business/real estate crew, most of the time, the bulk of the voters are going to lose, and they're going to find out about it after the fact, because as stated upthread, no one attends local government meetings.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I'm more interested in data than "reason". Got any?

Lind's Law has also been my general impression but I would also like to see some data.

I think the FCC auction process is probably less corrupt than auctions of public goods at the local level. I think zoning and real estate development is probably less corrupt at the federal level than the local level but once again, this is all anecdotal.

[Nametag]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I worked in local government for about a decade. In my opinion, it is less corrupt than state and federal government, not because local government officials are made of tougher moral fiber than state/fed officials, but because the stakes are considerably lower in local government.

One crosses Sayre's law at one's peril...