I never looked it up, finding the portmanteau to be quite obvious, but doing so now finds nearly 3000 hits, including urban dictionary, which has the definition that you would think.
Well “purer” is really a matter of definition - high-level corruption in a developing country means “I’m going to enrich my family and my friends by sending hundreds of thousands or millions in sweet tax-dollar spending contracts to their companies.”
High-level corruption in the US is more like “I’m going to pass this law screwing everyone in the US with an internet connection because Comcast donated $5M to my campaign, and then pass a huge tax cut for me and all my millionaire buddies.”
My argument is the first type of corruption is more localized - it affects maybe 5% of the population who had companies that were unfairly competed against when bidding on those contracts. The second type screws everyone with an internet connection or the 96% of people who aren’t millionaires (aka everybody).
In my opinion, the second type is the worse type of corruption, because it affects everybody, where the first type doesn’t.
There’s two problems with this.
-
What view points are not being heard? What’s preventing advocacy groups from spreading their message? In this age of easy publishing/streaming on the internet and hundreds of cable channels, the barriers to entry to the marketplace of ideas are the smallest they’ve ever been. If there’s a problem, it’s that it’s too cheap, and there’s too many voices.
-
If we allow the government to limit the use of money for one freedom (speech), what’s to prevent it from limiting the use of money for other freedoms? Sure, join the union, but you can’t gather any money to cover strike expenses. Go ahead and end the pregnancy, but the medical workers can’t accept any compensation for it. Why yes, you have the right to defend yourself in court, but you can’t pay any lawyers more than $1 a day. Using money to exercise a freedom is a necessary part of exercising that freedom for most people.
I would happily support those kinds of reforms here. But I would ask you for some evidence that a different campaign finance system would produce substantially different results, either in elections or in policy.
Except for, you know, the fact that it is false.
Yes, I can tell you have a very low opinion of politicians when you find, say, Barack Obama to be somewhat more corrupt than a foreign cop who will not do his job unless he is bribed. But yes, I agree that this system we have in the U.S. works against politicians doing what they should be doing. That isn’t corruption, though, that’s like a form of mandatory incompetence.
Again, tell me what you think would be different with a different campaign finance system. You mentioned health care earlier: you think we’d have single payer healthcare if not for Citizens United? Ha!
I’m not sure how unions five of the top 20 organizations, I’d say they raise a lot of money. And of the top 20 organizations, seems like they lean to the left, in terms of those who would be most likely to vote for things like better labor laws, expanding healthcare, etc.
But what you’re failing to establish is whether the left-leaning policies in Europe or Canada are because of their campaign finance systems. I would attribute it to voters in those countries being a little bit smarter. 
You recognize that Congress did not vote on net neutrality, and if voted upon, there’s a good chance it would pass (though probably be vetoed). And why is it that all your examples of bad laws are ones supported by conservatives?
You think top level corruption only affects the companies involved? Where do you think all those “sweet tax-dollars” sent to their companies comes from?
Do you think, after making sure that the local “Comcast” ends up in the hands of one of their buddies the government enacts strict regulations and makes sure the big companies are the ones that get taxed rather than the little people?
You really haven’t thought this through at all.
My question was for you to name a country that has the first type of corruption, but not the second. ISTM that the two kinds usually go together. The US may (or may not) have the second kind, and has relatively little of the first. For the US to be worse than Nigeria or someplace like that, you would need to show that Nigeria doesn’t have the second kind.
Regards,
Shodan
Say we had the crazy notion of wanting to elect somebody who wasn’t a millionaire and who didn’t stand on metaphorical street corners selling themselves to any passing corporation with a suitcase of cash and a gleam in its eye?
What chance do they have of winning the presidency or a role as senator? A snowball’s chance? In Arizona? In August?
Those viewpoints.
Just because J. Random Yahoo can use twitter to talk about lizard people or whatever does not mean there is real discourse or a real option in politics, and it is because the average campaign needs 10’s or 100’s of millions of dollars.
You’re right, this explains why Belgium, Canada, France, Israel, and Japan are howling wastelands where the government mandates every dollar they spend and has taken away all freedoms, with a despotic boot trampling their faces forevermore.
Boy, they really made a mistake when they passed legally mandated limits on campaign contributions and spending!
There are many different types of corruption, and corruption is going to be hard to measure. I think many attempts to measure corruption are based on the experiences of foreign businessmen; this will miss many types of corruption.
For example, in the U.S. prisons are often run by private companies with outrageous behavior. In some cases judges were bribed to wrongfully incarcerate juveniles to add to prison profits. IIRC, some contracts with private prisons require that a state pay a penalty if it doesn’t sentence enough prisoners to meet a threshold. This is absolutely ridiculous — are there any other countries with this practice? — yet it won’t show up in businessmen’s surveys of corruption. Indeed, many pro-business anti-people policies, however corrupt in common-sense terms, will be viewed as good by businessmen.
I have spent decades in Thailand, which ranks as more corrupt than China or Argentina; I can recite amusing anecdotes about corruption. But my encounters with Thai police have been generally better than encounters with U.S. police. (Except for routine traffic offenses) I’ve never been asked for a bribe by a government official, even though I’ve been in positions where large sums could have been easily extorted from me. The routine extortion by police of foreigner-owned bars has been largely shut down, BTW, by the military government, at least in the tourist resort nearest to me.
I’ve thought of starting a thread “Ask me about rural Thailand” and will do so with a little encouragement. One topic would be corruption — and make no mistake, there is some extreme evil here. Corruption here is surely worse, overall, than in the U.S. But there is much truth in OP; I’m saddened that some Dopers have to view this issue in black-and-white.
As one amusing anecdote, consider the time I wanted to renew my driver’s license. I went to what I thought was the temporary DMV office but noticed a sign “We don’t sell driver’s licenses.” (I can read Thai.) I turned away, confused … until I realized the meaning was that I couldn’t just buy a license, I’d have to pass the test!
The OP is the one who chose to frame the question the way they did. It’s not seeing things in black and white to discuss the actual proposition made rather than whatever truth you saw in it. There are plenty of honest discussion about money in US politics in other threads.
I don’t know how you’re defining “rich,” but politicians are beholden to the super-rich and to giant corporations. If by “rich” you mean people with only a few millions in wealth, those “rich” have little to do with the large-scale political corruption problem.
Didn’t Trump brag that he’d given money to almost everyone on both stages, R and D? And executives of big banks give big money to politicians from both big parties.
In a way, it’s almost too bad that the super-rich don’t finance political campaigns entirely by themselves. I recently read that many Congressmen average 4 hours per day soliciting donations. Is that a sign of a healthy democracy?
That is not necessarily corruption. I could be, in some instances, but it isn’t necessarily so across the board. Just like Citizens United did not say money = speech, one cannot just assume that money = corruption.
No idea. Where his lips moving when he said it though? That’s usually a sign that he’s lying I’ve found, though it’s not a perfect indication. The other tell I’ve seen is, are his fingers moving over some device for him to text? The final tell would be, is he breathing?
Whether it’s the sign of a health democracy or not is debatable…and it’s not what this debate is about. This one is about whether the US is more corrupt than ‘developing countries’.
With that being said, there isn’t a quantitative measurement of corruption. So I don’t think you can make a claim one country is more corrupt than others, because you could make arguments for the different types of corruption and how severe they are on the world.
Having the US government aligned with personal financial interests by those in power has caused a world of shit for more than just our population. It’d be much better if we had progressives in office who looked towards the long term and not the short term. It’s simply in the nature of the conservative ideology to keep things as they are. Sadly it’s plagued our government because most younger people who tend to be further left don’t vote. Hopefully all that’s changing because the most effective way to change the status quo in a democracy is to vote.
You responded to my point about how poor voters aren’t tremendously different in their voting than rich voters with this harangue of rich politicians and corrupt politicians… which has nothing to do with my post, so, uh, thank you for your opinions on whatever it is you think you were proving.
Well, it’s a debate. Go ahead and make the claim. Cite some ‘developing countries’ (which itself is debatable) and compare and contrast what you think is ‘corruption’ and we can debate the merits of your argument verse your apparent assertion that it’s all the conservatives in the US (and perhaps old people and is combatted by democracy and voting or something…I couldn’t really follow the rest). The OP has asserted but I haven’t seen a lot of evidence or even logical argument thus far. I’ve seen only one cite showing rankings for national corruption (which I’ve used myself in similar debates to this in the past) but nothing else.
I didn’t check — is that the page you cited in a recent thread but, when interesting characteristics of the data were pointed out, you then claimed that the rankings in your own cited page overestimated corruption in the U.S. and underestimated corruption in China. That page, right?
Do we understand that the super-rich are a different group of people from the rich?
Wrong. The point was that the corrupt system favors the super-rich. Your comparison of voting by the poor and the merely rich was a confused digression.
Or maybe you think David Koch and a typical successful dentist have similar life-styles and similar political sentiments; is that it?
Cite:
I know nothing about China, but government corruption is a very common topic of conversation in Thailand.
As for Americans’ awareness of corruption in America, I recall a conversation with a well-educated Californian complaining about high PG&E bills (during the era of Enron chicanery). She blamed PG&E for the high bills and seemingly had never heard of Enron! :smack: (Yes, I realize that for some Americans Enron’s profiteering was a triumph of the free market and had nothing to do with corrupt deregulation.)
I wonder how much the difference in types of corruption that the OP is describing, might actually be a social difference.
Specifically, I wonder if the fact that the modern US is not an “honor culture” changes things.
If the most old-fashioned of the long-ago Mafia leaders could be brought back from the dead and dropped off in Washington, would they cringe at how sleazy everything and everyone is? I have a feeling they might. There’s none of the old-fashioned “honor” to make Washington work the way Washington is set up to work. I believe and hope that it’s rare in modern Washington to worry that you’ll be found dead in the morning if you betray your allies - but at the same time, perhaps it’s precisely the lack of that primal fear that allows things to get so far out of hand.
I’m not saying Washington needs more murders; I’m saying maybe cleaning up the murder while leaving the bribery intact has left a dangerous imbalance - that maybe you can’t actually run a bribe culture without violent enforcement, but that that’s exactly how Washington is being (mis)run.
At the time it was happening, i.e., when Enron was fraudulently manipulating the energy prices, I don’t think Enron was a well-known company. It was only after everything came to light that it became well-known, so in this case I don’t see the unawareness as unusual, or unusually American.