Advertisement

Democratic Norms, Political Money, and Corruption

The Deeper Roots of Political Malaise
  • Michael Johnston
Chapter
Part of the Political Corruption and Governance book series (PCG)

Abstract

Most definitions of corruption classify categories of actions as corrupt, but encounter the questions of which standards to apply. Laws are the most common choice, but others highlight harm to the public interest, or social and cultural values. The inconclusive debate over definitions suggests, however, that all three approaches have their problems. This chapter argues that democratic norms can help us build better behavior classifications. As Warren suggests, inclusion of citizens and respect for their interests is a major democratic norm. When it is disregarded, the result can be a widespread sense that democratic politics has been corrupted. Democratic norms add to, rather than supplanting, other standards, but can also help us understand the political malaise now on display in many democracies.

References

  1. Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. 2012. Why Nations Fail. New York: Random House/Crown Business.Google Scholar
  2. Bacon, Perry. 2008. Sat. Night with Clinton: A Beer, a Slice and a Charge Against Obama. Washington Post, April 13. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/04/sat-night-with-clinton-a-beer.html. Accessed 13 June 2017.
  3. Byrd, Robert C. 1994. The Senate, 1789–1989: Classic Speeches, 1830–1993. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  4. Collier, David, and S. Levitsky. 1997. Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research. World Politics 49: 430–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dinçer, Oguzhan C., and Michael Johnston. 2017. Political Culture and Corruption Issues in State Politics: A New Measure of Corruption Issues and a Test of Relationships to Political Culture. Publius 47: 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dobel, J. Patrick. 1978. The Corruption of a State. American Political Science Review 72: 958–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edelman, Murray. 1967. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  8. Frank, Thomas. 2004. What’s the Matter with Kansas? New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  9. Gage, Beverly. 2016. Who is the ‘Forgotten Man’? New York Times, November 9. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/who-is-the-forgotten-man. Accessed 13 June 2017.
  10. Gandhi, Jennifer. 2008. Political Institutions Under Dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Howard, Ron. 1997. Frank Capra’s American Dream. Video biography with film excerpts. Columbia TriStar Television.Google Scholar
  12. Johnston, Michael. 2014. Corruption, Contention, and Reform: The Power of Deep Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. King, Martin Luther Jr. 1963. Letter from Birmingham City Jail. May 1. http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/document/letter-birmingham-city-jail-0#. Accessed 13 June 2017.
  14. Lessig, Lawrence. 2011. Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It. New York: Twelve Books.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2013. ‘Institutional Corruption’ Defined. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 41: 2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levine, Bertram J., and Michael Johnston. 2016. The Compliance Equation: Creating a More Ethical and Equitable Campaign Financing System by Blinding Contributions to Federal Candidates. In Blinding as a Solution to Bias: Strengthening Biomedical Science, Forensic Science, and Law, ed. A.S. Kesselheim and C.T. Robertson, 278–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Morin, Rich, Paul Taylor, and Eileen Patten. 2012. A Bipartisan Nation of Beneficiaries. Pew Research Center: Social and Demographic Trends, December 18. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/12/18/a-bipartisan-nation-of-beneficiaries/. Accessed 13 June 2017.
  18. Nichols, Philip M. 2015. The Good Bribe. U.C. Davis Law Review 49: 647–683.Google Scholar
  19. Nye, Joseph. 1967. Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. American Political Science Review 61: 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parnes, Amie, and Jonathan Allen. 2017. Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  21. Phillips, Kristine. 2017. Tina Fey Tells College-Educated White Women Who Voted for Trump: ‘You Can’t Look Away’. Washington Post, April 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/04/01/tiny-fey-tells-college-educated-white-women-who-voted-for-trump-you-cant-look-away/?utm_term=.ff3e89a1da47. Accessed 14 June 2017.
  22. Plattner, Marc F. 2010. Populism, Pluralism, and Liberal Democracy. Journal of Democracy 21: 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rothstein, Bo. 2011. The Quality of Government: Corruption, Social Trust, and Inequality in International Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thompson, Derek. 2012. 7 Facts About Government Benefits and Who Gets Them. The Atlantic, December 18. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/7factsaboutgovernmentbenefitsandwhogetsthem/266428/. Accessed 13 June 2017.
  25. Tilly, Charles. 1998. Durable Inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Warren, Mark. 2004. What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy? American Journal of Political Science 48: 328–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zakaria, Fareed. 1997. The Rise of Illiberal Democracy. Foreign Affairs 76: 22–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Johnston
    • 1
  1. 1.Colgate UniversityHamiltonUSA

Personalised recommendations