Current Political Corruption
Current Political Corruption
Corruption
The conduct we’re seeing now reflects and amplifies the widespread erosion of norms that has infected all branches of the federal government. While corruption has ebbed and flowed since America’s founding, the worst abuses of the past — the rampant bribes that fuelled the Gilded Age and the Teapot Dome scandal in the 1920s that sent the secretary of the interior to prison — consisted of individual personal enrichment.
Subsequent reforms greatly diminished this type of corruption by improving public administration, increasing governmental transparency, and imposing new ethics and anticorruption rules. Starting in the mid-20th century, however, more structural forms of corruption emerged, driven by the increasingly significant role of money in politics. Attempts to curtail this newer form of corruption have been much less successful, due in part to interference by the Supreme Court. Now, with conditions ripe for abuse, personal corruption is again on the rise.
Democratic and Republican administrations have both seen their share of corruption scandals in recent decades. President Bill Clinton was criticized for rewarding big campaign donors with overnight stays at the White House and for a string of controversial pardons at the end of his term. The George W. Bush administration faced allegations of cronyism involving Iraq War contracts with Haliburton, among other scandals.
And President Joe Biden faced criticism over his son’s business activities trading on his father’s position when Biden was vice president, as well as for his decision to issue norm-busting pre-emptive pardons to family before leaving office.
President Trump, however, has intensified and normalized the extreme mix of money, power, and conflicts of interest with his uniquely transactional and personalist approach to governing, merging his political identity with his personal business interests.
Trump shattered norms in his first term when he refused to divest from his hotels and other businesses, resulting in widespread conflicts of interest as foreign governments and lobbyists sought to curry Favor with the administration through lavish spending at Trump’s properties. As the examples below show, his actions have been even more sweeping in his second term
Anti-corruption strategy
On 11 December 2017 the government published its cross-department anti-corruption strategy, which runs from 2017 to 2022. The strategy aims to build on previous measures, such as the 2014 anti-corruption plan, the national security strategy and the 2016 London anti-corruption summit.
In the foreword to the strategy, the then home secretary, Amber Rudd, stated:
Although the UK enjoys higher levels of integrity than many other countries, we are not immune from the effects of corruption. Stories of corruption can undermine confidence in our institutions and our business reputation more widely. Meanwhile, corruption overseas threatens our security and makes it harder for UK companies to compete for business. To secure our future prosperity, we must do all that we can to make sure that Britain remains one of the safest and cleanest places in the world to do business.
She highlighted what she described as key achievements of the government over time, such as the framework provided by the Bribery Act 2010 up to the Criminal Finances Act 2017. She also drew attention to the work of the anti-corruption tsar, Conservative MP John Penrose, noting, “since 2010 the UK has arguably done more than any country in the world to fight corruption”.
securing the public commitment with all crown dependencies and inhabited overseas territories to implement publicly accessible registers of company beneficial ownership information
extending the remit of the national fraud initiative and helping local authorities to undertake bank account and active company checks
reforming the police complaints and disciplinary systems to make them more transparent, independent and proportionate
securing endorsement from G20 ministers of a G20 call to action for countries to combat corruption in the Covid-19 response and recovery
publishing a review of procurement risks in local government that improves understanding and strengthens our response
publishing the green paper on procurement reform with specific proposals to further strengthen transparency and integrity across governme
Other measures
In June 2022, the then Cabinet Office Minister Michael Ellis provided the following overview of measures to ensure standards of probity in public life, stating:
There are a range of mechanisms in place to maintain and drive-up standards, including codes of conduct (such as the Ministerial Code, Civil Service Code, Special Adviser Code), policies and guidance (such as Managing Public Money), and bodies and offices charged with overseeing aspects of government activity (for example the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and the Civil Service Commission). The Committee on Standards in Public Life also issues regular reports with ideas and recommendations for the government and other public bodies to consider.
He also referred to the government’s work on the anti-corruption strategy.
The most recent CSPL report, published in November 2021, had included recommendations on several areas mentioned by Mr Ellis. The foreword to the November 2021 CSPL report, written by chair Lord Evans of Weardale, stated:
The regulation of the Ministerial Code needs greater independence as it lags similar arrangements for MPs, peers, and civil servants. The scope of the Business Appointment Rules should be expanded, and the rules should be enforced through legal arrangements. Reforms to the powers of the Commissioner for Public Appointments would provide a better guarantee of the independence of assessment panels. Transparency around lobbying is poor and requires better co-ordination and more consistent publication by the Cabinet Office.
Using Money to Gain Access and Sway Policy Decisions
For most of modern U.S. politics, especially since the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it has been common for political leaders in both parties to give wealthy donors access and influence in exchange for large campaign contributions. This practice can result in donor-friendly policies that persist despite being broadly unpopular, such as the carried interest loophole that saves Wall Street billions in taxes each year. In addition, past presidents have often rewarded donors with ceremonial or symbolic positions in the administration, especially ambassadorships in desirable locations.
President Trump has taken donor influence to new heights. He overtly pressured oil industry executives to give $1 billion to his re-election effort, promising to slash pollution regulations and roll back Biden administration clean energy initiatives. He also assembled the wealthiest administration in history, appointing an unprecedented number of billionaire donors to key roles in his cabinet and at agencies where they direct policymaking — potentially over matters implicating their own financial interests.
Elon Musk alone spent nearly $300 million to help President Trump win the 2024 election and, for a period, became one of Trump’s closest advisers as the administration took a series of actions benefiting Musk’s companies.
Moreover, unlike other politicians who hold expensive private fundraisers, Trump is using his events to profit personally rather than raising money for a campaign. Since the 2024 election, Trump has sold access at $1 million-per-plate dinners at his Mar-a-Lago resort, one-on-one meetings with business leaders for $5 million, and a private dinner with the 220 individuals who spent the most buying Trump’s cryptocurrency — nearly $400 million in total.
It is also notable how many donors have since received significant benefits, including pardons and favourably resolved enforcement actions brought by agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission.
A Cynical View of Corruption
For years, partisans have exploited the legal landscape the Supreme Court created, pushing the boundaries of what conduct is deemed acceptable and diluting public discourse around corruption. The rise of scorched-earth politics in the late 1980s saw accusations of corruption become partisan cudgels.
The practice of libelling anything the other side does as corrupt has contributed to public cynicism about the political system and robbed the term of its meaning. So has the media’s horse-race coverage of elections and its frequent habit of false balance.
While he doesn’t have a monopoly on norm-busting behaviours, President Trump has accelerated these trends with his openly transactional approach to power. He campaigned on the promise to reward friends and punish enemies and now flaunts his favour or disfavours and the resulting consequences.
This brazenness warps perceptions about what conduct counts as corrupt, reinforcing the public’s belief that corruption is a normal part of American politics and setting a precedent for future misconduct.
Transparency International produces an annual corruption perceptions index (CPI) which ranks 180 countries and territories around the world by their perceived levels of public sector corruption. The results are given on a scale of 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean).
The most recent analysis, the 2021 CPI, was published in January 2022. It ranks the UK as eleventh out of 180 countries, with a score of 78, an improvement of one point since the 2020 CPI. This contrasts with Denmark, Finland and New Zealand, ranked joint first, each with a score of 88.
The lowest scoring countries are South Sudan and Syria with scores of 11 and 13 respectively. While the situation in the UK has improved from scores of 77 in both 2019 and 2020, the 2021 score is a drop when compared to scores of 81 in 2015 and 82 in 2017.
Transparency International has argued that progress to tackle corruption has “flatlined” in recent years. Commenting on the situation in Western Europe and the European Union, it notes:
The Covid-19 pandemic has threatened transparency and accountability across the region, leaving no country unscathed and exposing worrying signs of backsliding among even the region’s best performers
The CPI has its critics, who note that corruption is a complex issue and different forms and levels of corruption are hard to accurately convey in one score. As outlined by Daniel Hough, professor of politics at the University of Sussex, the CPI measures the perception of corruption rather than being an objective measure.
It also only examines public corruption, that is, corruption in and around governments. However, Daniel Hough describes the CPI as “a decent place to start” and “the most well-known indicator of how much corruption exists”.
Professor Hough also notes that the conclusions reached by the CPI on corruption in the UK are not an outlier and are comparable to several of the other indices of global corruption produced, commenting:
The fourth edition of the Global Corruption Index, for example, has the UK 8th in its 2021 table, an improvement of three places on where it was in 2020. In the 2021 Freedom from Corruption Index the UK came in 13th (out of 181), scoring 87 out of 100 while it was 10th in the most recent (2019) Index of Public Integrity. The World Bank also has the UK doing very well in terms of control of corruption, placing it very near the top when it comes to quality of governance.
Final
Outlining the government’s response to the CSPL recommendations in a written statement made on 15 July 2022, Mr Ellis concluded:
Work on further reforms, including those proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life […] continues and will be informed by the new prime minister.
On 29 July 2022, Lord Evans wrote to both candidates in the Conservative Party leadership contest, drawing attention to the committee’s report and indicating that “the committee would greatly welcome your commitment to taking forward our recommendations”.
