Moses’s ‘corruption’ was, at least generally, atypical, e.g. not bribery or blatantly abusing his power.
He also did engaged in less atypical actions. He hired people to dig up dirt on his opponents. Once he had the Triborough Bridge Authority he used that to pay people off. It was however more paying people for to be loyal to him in general instead of for one particular project.
I thought your conception of ‘corruption’ was too vague and too expansive.
There’s a reason this post is a question and not an essay. I point to something unclear that I don’t understand well.
Is the ability to influence a bill being passed, and exercising that ability, corruption? Is it only corrupt if you’re a corporation or its agent?
The standard working definition of corruption I use is that it’s about trading things of different domains. If Alice votes with Bob on bill X in return for Bob voting with Alice on bill Y that’s not corruption but normal negotiation of interests in politics.
If Alice votes with Bob on bill X in return for Bob giving her personally cash, that’s corruption.
A government drafts a new law and publishes a request for feedback. A lobbyist uses his expertise to answer the request for feedback and explains a way how the law can be improved. If the government then finds that answer convincing on it’s merits and incorporates the feedback that’s not corrupt.
When talking to a ex-lobbyist they explained to me that this was a lot of what they did in their work and that’s white-hat lobbying that’s important for having a government that doesn’t accidently pass laws that kill part of it’s industry because the government doesn’t understand what the laws they propose do.
If Elon Musk goes to the Texan government and says “I would like to launch rockets from Texas, at the moment the laws about noise pollution forbid this. Can you change the laws in a way that allows me to lunch rockets from Texas? I would employ Texan citizens to work for me” that’s a reasonable request. It would be reasonable if the politician on the other side asks “How many Texan citizens would you employ? Can you promise to employ at least X number of our citizens in SpaceX?”
You want an entrepreneur like SpaceX to be able to start such an exchange even without a request for feedback.
If the politician however says “My son would like an internship at SpaceX, can you see that he gets that?” that would be corrupt as it’s trading things of different domains.
There’s some debate about whether or not campaign donations should count as being in the political domain and thus fair game or not. While they are less corrupt then direct personal benefits, I think it still makes sense to see them as corruption. The fact that in the above example Elon Musk would have likely given some campaign donation before getting the meeting to discuss his proposal is a form of corruption and this paying for access is widespread in Washington.
With Uber there are allegations that Uber used his own systems to track politicians. If the information from tracking politicians was used to influence the political process that’s corrupt as it’s using things of different domains.
Uber/AirBnB getting what they want in legislation would not be evidence of corruption but them not getting what they want is evidence that the lack power to corrupt the system in the way they want to.
There’s a reason this post is a question and not an essay. I point to something unclear that I don’t understand well.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear but I’m also trying to make sense of your question and understanding what you mean by ‘corruption’ was my most significant obstacle.
The standard working definition of corruption I use is that it’s about trading things of different domains.
My problem with this is that it still seems too nebulous. I’m not sure how to answer the question without having a sharper distinction for what is and isn’t ‘corruption’ so as to at least estimate its total costs and benefits.
You mentioned “white-hat lobbying” and that’s exactly what I was thinking of when I asked whether you consider lobbying itself to be a form of corruption. From the evidence and info I’ve gleaned from the lobbyist I know, there’s quite a bit of the ‘mechanics’ involved, e.g. in ‘accessing’ politicians, that seems at least a little corrupt.
And I’ve read a reasonable defense of corruption in general arguing that, in effect, corruption provided something liked liquidity to political markets and that made negotiation among coalitions generally easier to conduct (which is itself arguably good). I’m very sympathetic to that.
I’m sorry I haven’t been able to provide a clear answer or even clear thinking about your question. I think it’s an interesting question tho!
He also did engaged in less atypical actions. He hired people to dig up dirt on his opponents. Once he had the Triborough Bridge Authority he used that to pay people off. It was however more paying people for to be loyal to him in general instead of for one particular project.
There’s a reason this post is a question and not an essay. I point to something unclear that I don’t understand well.
The standard working definition of corruption I use is that it’s about trading things of different domains. If Alice votes with Bob on bill X in return for Bob voting with Alice on bill Y that’s not corruption but normal negotiation of interests in politics.
If Alice votes with Bob on bill X in return for Bob giving her personally cash, that’s corruption.
A government drafts a new law and publishes a request for feedback. A lobbyist uses his expertise to answer the request for feedback and explains a way how the law can be improved. If the government then finds that answer convincing on it’s merits and incorporates the feedback that’s not corrupt.
When talking to a ex-lobbyist they explained to me that this was a lot of what they did in their work and that’s white-hat lobbying that’s important for having a government that doesn’t accidently pass laws that kill part of it’s industry because the government doesn’t understand what the laws they propose do.
If Elon Musk goes to the Texan government and says “I would like to launch rockets from Texas, at the moment the laws about noise pollution forbid this. Can you change the laws in a way that allows me to lunch rockets from Texas? I would employ Texan citizens to work for me” that’s a reasonable request. It would be reasonable if the politician on the other side asks “How many Texan citizens would you employ? Can you promise to employ at least X number of our citizens in SpaceX?”
You want an entrepreneur like SpaceX to be able to start such an exchange even without a request for feedback.
If the politician however says “My son would like an internship at SpaceX, can you see that he gets that?” that would be corrupt as it’s trading things of different domains.
There’s some debate about whether or not campaign donations should count as being in the political domain and thus fair game or not. While they are less corrupt then direct personal benefits, I think it still makes sense to see them as corruption. The fact that in the above example Elon Musk would have likely given some campaign donation before getting the meeting to discuss his proposal is a form of corruption and this paying for access is widespread in Washington.
With Uber there are allegations that Uber used his own systems to track politicians. If the information from tracking politicians was used to influence the political process that’s corrupt as it’s using things of different domains.
Uber/AirBnB getting what they want in legislation would not be evidence of corruption but them not getting what they want is evidence that the lack power to corrupt the system in the way they want to.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear but I’m also trying to make sense of your question and understanding what you mean by ‘corruption’ was my most significant obstacle.
My problem with this is that it still seems too nebulous. I’m not sure how to answer the question without having a sharper distinction for what is and isn’t ‘corruption’ so as to at least estimate its total costs and benefits.
You mentioned “white-hat lobbying” and that’s exactly what I was thinking of when I asked whether you consider lobbying itself to be a form of corruption. From the evidence and info I’ve gleaned from the lobbyist I know, there’s quite a bit of the ‘mechanics’ involved, e.g. in ‘accessing’ politicians, that seems at least a little corrupt.
And I’ve read a reasonable defense of corruption in general arguing that, in effect, corruption provided something liked liquidity to political markets and that made negotiation among coalitions generally easier to conduct (which is itself arguably good). I’m very sympathetic to that.
I’m sorry I haven’t been able to provide a clear answer or even clear thinking about your question. I think it’s an interesting question tho!