"How else can you explain the lack of legislative outrage?"

Let's look at a couple (of the many possible) references to political corruption. John Strohmeyer's column in the ADN yesterday calling for the Alaska legislature to move out of Juneau and Marcus Stern's Pulitzer Prize winning book on Randy "Duke" Cunningham.



"This is about as crass as bribery can get. But such is the environment in Juneau. It is a cesspool for political corruption. There are no whistle-blowers in the legislative chambers. Legislators learn soon they are accountable to each other more than to the people they represent. How else can you explain the lack of legislative outrage when Senate president Ben Stevens, R-Anchorage, who was paid a total of $243,250 by Veco, prevailed without challenge last year in the thick of the negotiations over oil and gas taxes." Drag political cesspool out of Juneau, ADN, May 22, 2007.

My question echoes Strohmeyers lament about the lack of legislative outrage: why it is so hard to stand up to corrupt politicians? OK, I know the basics, but if we are going to make being corrupt harder, we have to really understand the forces that keep the good politicians from bringing down their corrupt colleagues and keep the public from voting them out. I'll start a few conjectures here and I hope to pursue this further.

OK, let's start on factors that 'allow' corruption to flourish:

1. Strohmeyer's conclusion is that Juneau is the problem. Juneau is too small and too isolated. But the Cunningham case took place in Washington DC, so do we move the US capital out of DC? I suspect that wherever the capital is, these forces will converge there. So we have to understand the forces.

2. Power certainly plays a big role.
A. Minority v. Majority power - Minority leader Ethan Berkowitz chastised now indicted Rep. Weyhrauch on the house floor of being at the beck and call of lobbyists. You can hear that exchange in an earlier post. Berkowitz made the attempt to call attention to the blatant behavior, but to little avail. Or maybe the accumulation of a lot of evidence like this played a role in the eventual investigations and indictments.
B. Bullying and bluster - Ken Silverstein, in a Harper's interview with Stern writes, "When former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder stood up to challenge him [Cunningham] he called her a socialist and told her to sit down." He links to this video:

Standing up to such bullying is tiring. It would be interesting to study politicians who shout down their critics with anger and name calling and questionable behavior.
C. Retaliation - Seats on important committees are taken away. Favored bills are sabotaged. Funding for one's district is cut. Those willing to stand up to corruption often find themselves isolated and powerless. This is closely related to A - Majority v. Minority power.
D. Structural interdependence - how committees are established, assignments made, the power of committee chairs over agendas, the need for campaign funds, all weave a net that makes it difficult for politicians to fight as individuals against corruption. All these entanglements mean that every politician is liable to have some skeleton in the closet - an earmark for an important donor, a paid trip, attendance at a conference that later gets tied to a questionable person or cause. Thus anyone who stands up, invites scrutiny of his or her record, and attack, whether justified or not.

3. Time and resources - In today's Fresh Air, Marcus Stern said Cunningham first came to his attention seven years ago when two women staffers he knew told him about being invited to Cunningham's boat one night. He looked into it, but eventually gave it up.

4. Access to information - Moving suspicion to proof isn't easy. Rep. Berkowitz and others in Juneau couldn't secretly tape the conversations in the Baranof Hotel's Room 604 the way the FBI could. Tracking down who bought Cunningham's house for $1.6 million and later sold it for $700,000 less takes research skills and the knowledge to make the necessary connections.

5. Stories, Models, Narratives - Beliefs people have in their heads play a critical role in limiting or empowering them. The stories about how things work, about what's important, about what they can and should do, all affect how they react to others. Whether they even see the corrupt behavior. And when they do, whether they accept it as normal or outrageous. And if outrageous, whether they have the power to do anything about it. And if they take action, what they might lose. So, some fellow legislators see nothing wrong in what their corrupt colleagues are doing. Others see it and accept it as 'the way things are.' Some stand up to it. What differentiates them?

OK, that's enough for this post. There's lots more to explore here. I haven't even touched why citizens reelect someone with clear signs of problems such as the FBI searching his office and carting off files and other evidence.


Ultimately, it seems to me that if it is true that the vast majority of legislators are honest and well intended, that they must unite and stand up as a block against violation. It isn't easy, if getting tainted is inherent in the fund raising necessary to get elected. The possibility of not winning the next election is clearly the price one has to accept in order to keep one's honor (if only to oneself) and to look after the public's interest.

There are examples of people successfully standing up as I've mentioned earlier. The current Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, stood up to her party bosses and beat them. Ray Metcalf kept after Ben Stevens, in what seemed like a Quixotic effort until the FBI stepped in.