Ethics Newsline®

A reader responds to last week’s commentary by Rushworth Kidder, “Is Congress Corrupt?”:

You indicate that there is a culture of bribery in Congress and that changing the names on the doors won’t change the situation. I totally agree. But if I could expand your notion of culture a bit to include the “terms and conditions of governance” we might get at the root cause of dysfunctional congressional behavior.

The terms and conditions of governance (including cultural norms) help explain the prevalence of these behaviors. In particular, campaign finance, relationship of lobbyists to lawmakers, gerrymandering, and some processes for congressional decision making (earmarking and closed-door conference committee sessions that exclude minority party members) have created conditions that make it very difficult for members to consider the broader public interest in decision making. When a corporate sponsor, for example, provides private jets at highly discounted rates, a lawmaker feels obligated to reciprocate these kind acts. The reciprocity may be in the form of earmarking expenditures, intervening in regulatory agencies, and/or providing them extraordinary opportunity to influence the writing of legislation.

This does not meet the formal definition of bribery or corruption — where money is directly exchanged for a specific congressional intervention. In fact, I would argue that far greater harm is generated by this informal system of reciprocity than all the outright examples of bribery. A skillful lobbyist working with clients knows how to create an obligation. This might help explain why we start to deal with issues (immigration, global warming, energy, health care, etc.) only when they reach crisis proportions. Most of the time, lawmakers are addressing the short-term needs of those who played a major role in sponsoring their campaigns.

We have a governance system that is broken. If the processes of governance are not well designed, it is no surprise that our policies rarely address our most compelling long-term problems. As practical idealists, can anything be done about this condition?
Perhaps our only hope is to rethink the terms and conditions of governance that have been invented to implement the Constitution. Develop recommendations that would be considered fair and increase the possibility for civil discourse in political engagement, and lead a good government reform movement that would influence meaningful change. 

– Donald G. Zauderer
Professor Emeritus
American University
Washington, DC