The key theoretical point is this: public power, not public office-holding, ought to be our marker for determining who may be guilty of public corruption. By extension – with understanding that it is not easy to identify what constitutes “public power” or even “selfish behavior” – all selfish exercise of public power is corrupt. Elected officials who exercise public power in the service of private ends are corrupt irrespective of the legality of their behavior. I argue that we should use the same test for corporations as we do for public officials, condemning selfish behavior as corrupt when it accompanies the exercise of public power, regardless of whether that public power derives from formal office-holding. But if legality is not the line between corrupt and noncorrupt corporate political behavior, what is? We can certainly agree that the former is corrupt I think most would accept that the latter is also corrupt. In 2017 America, because of Citizens United, it is not illegal for a corporation to spend millions of dollars to punish a congressperson who voted against its interests. In 1820 America, it was not illegal for a corporation to give money to a member of Congress in explicit exchange for that congressperson’s vote. The question is, which of these behaviors should we call corrupt, and which are merely corrupting? Depending on which side of the law they stand on, corporate actors may push to legalize the most powerful of their mechanisms of control, criminalizing the tools used by weaker societal agents, or they may exercise their influence to decriminalize their behaviors in a new market. Having built their power within the United States or similar legal systems, corporations then use legal tools to exert influence in other countries. 3 All of these behaviors are not only legal in the United States, but are encouraged and taught as essential strategies in business schools. 2 These behaviors are also explored in depth in the works of sociologist Amitai Etzioni. These kinds of behaviors make up what Michael Johnston has termed “influence markets,” which he identifies as the primary mode of corruption in developed democracies. 1 But more frequently, corporate actors use sophisticated legal means to exercise power over public officials: by making campaign contributions, lobbying, exerting media influence, funding nonprofits, sponsoring think tanks, paying speaking fees, or even cornering the market on key goods and services, creating public dependencies on the corporation. Of course, in some cases, corporate actors engage in illegal bribes of public officials, and we can easily label this behavior corrupt. Should we call legal corporate political behavior corrupt? If so, when?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |