The Scariest Poll Of All

A June 2014 Gallup poll measured perceptions of governmental corruption in the United States, and found that most Americans hold an alarmingly pessimistic outlook, with an overwhelming 79% of respondents affirming a belief in widespread misconduct within the federal government. This is a rather dramatic spike over the course of just a few years; in 2006, a substantial (but significantly smaller) 59% of Americans believed that such corruption was commonplace. In another survey, conducted shortly after the 2012 presidential elections, Gallup found that voters viewed corruption as the second most important issue for the president to devote his attentions to (only job creation ranked higher as a voter priority). This popular belief that America’s government is corrupt, which is in large part rooted in the influx of money into the political system, poses an existential threat to the nation’s existence as a cohesive, functioning democracy.   

There are a number of reasons why a nation’s government might be seen by it's citizens as corrupt. In some countries, mostly in the developing world, governments often seem hopelessly debased due to open and aggressive bribery of various officials, particularly bureaucrats who exert control over licensing and regulatory matters. Such bribes are often a necessity for undertakings ranging from obtaining a driver’s license, to winning approval for major development projects. While the use of bribes might be legally forbidden in these nations, such laws are often mere formalities, poorly enforced, as government at multiple levels suffers from endemic levels of corruption. 

In the United States, the need for outright bribery to accomplish basic tasks is seemingly rarer. It is quite uncommon to pay off corrupt officials in order to renew one’s car registration, or obtain a building permit. Yet, perceptions of governmental corruption and wrongdoing appear quite strong amongst the American public. Why is this?

One major reason is the starring role of money, in the form of perfectly legal campaign contributions to politicians, in today’s political landscape. In a 2012 Reuters poll, 75% of respondents indicated that they believe there is too much money in politics, while 76% felt that the current campaign finance system affords the wealthy more influence over the political process, than other Americans. In another study, commissioned by the group Represent.Us, 71% of those polled believed that the electoral system was biased in favor of candidates with more money. 

Perhaps most revealing was a survey conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, which found that 69% of survey participants believed that uncontrolled campaign spending leads to corruption, and 73% felt that stricter donation limits would help curb such corruption. What’s particularly striking about the Brennan Center’s findings is the bipartisan consensus around the corrupting influence of massive campaign donations; in a time of deep political division, vast majorities of both Democrats as well as Republicans view massive political spending with considerable trepidation. Coming on the heels of the 2012 election cycle, which, with $6.3 billion in total campaign spending, was the most expensive in American history, it seems unlikely that the electorate is going to grow more comfortable with today’s dollar-drenched electoral politics, anytime in the near future.

The broader implications of this pervasive belief in the corruption of American politics and government are very troubling. After all, what moral right does an unethical government, run by politicians who are captive to donor money, have to allocate and spend the earnings, collected through taxes, of it’s citizenry? If the nation’s leadership, and the sprawling apparatus they oversee, is in the grip of those with the means to fund political campaigns at a massive scale, then taxation essentially comes to seem like a sort of theft; that is, the machinery of government, which takes a portion of people’s income, then seemingly works in favor of those most capable of filling politicians’ campaign coffers. 

Recent studies have confirmed the outsized impact of campaign contributions on favorable treatment by the federal government. The effects of these donations range from a higher probability of winning government contracts, to increased chances of political support for measures that are beneficial to industries and firms which donate heavily, as seen with the 2008 federal bailouts for troubled financial institutions. In American politics, more money very often means greater influence and power. 

At the same time, despite some high profile tax-related controversies, including issues of corporate tax avoidance, and reduced tax rates for many investors and financiers (particularly hedge fund and private equity asset managers), the United States enjoys one of the lowest rates of tax evasion in the world. However, a widespread belief in the existence of large-scale political corruption will eventually force taxpayer resentment and frustration to boil over. 

After all, it is at best hypocritical for the government to demand that citizens obey the law by paying taxes, when the leaders of government themselves are acting in bad faith, having auctioned off their power for campaign cash. Additionally, as deep-pocketed donors, few in number but powerful in net worth, sway the political system in their favor, ordinary citizens will come to believe they have a reduced stake in the outcomes of governmental decisions, and so their willingness to support the levers of government will gradually decrease.  

As a result of the growing disregard in which government is held, frustrated citizens will utilize increasingly bold and creative approaches to avoid the government’s enforcement powers. Over time, tax evasion will become more common, and the government, which has limited resources, and relies in large part on citizen cooperation, will find itself increasingly unable to stop such behavior.  

The consequences of such a shift would be profound, as can be seen in many developing nations, where tax evasion causes grave harm to economic growth. Funding the everyday operations of government, ranging from federal support for public schools, military operations, infrastructure projects, and safety net programs, grows increasingly difficult, as less tax money is available in federal coffers, relative to earmarked spending. Over time, the government will find it necessary to scale back some of it’s operations, perhaps in an unpredictable and economically damaging manner (as was seen with the unplanned 2013 government shutdown). A close look at nations as culturally and geographically diverse as Greece and Pakistan, both of which are suffering adverse economic consequences in part due to high levels of tax evasion, further drives this point home.  

The social and political meaning of these events is equally troubling. In the aforementioned situation, the nation’s citizens, or at least a sizable portion of them, will have decided that, because their government is irredeemably corrupt, it is inherently less worthy of their support. Tax evasion is but one symptom of a deep, deadly disease. The compact of trust and allegiance, which ties a nation’s people to their representative government, a core attribute for any democratic republic, will be shattered. In essence, respect for, and the perceived legitimacy of, the United States federal government, as the nation’s chief maker, interpreter and enforcer of laws, will be lost. In America’s past, aside from the relatively brief but immeasurably bloody interval of the Civil War, this sort of split between government, and a large portion of the populace, is essentially unprecedented. 

Such alienation from government will almost certainly lead to more widespread disregard for the nation’s laws, and an unwillingness to contribute and sacrifice in the spirit of a shared national purpose. Numerous aspects of engaged citizenship, ranging from military recruitment and participation in national service programs, to voter turnout rates and compliance with various federal laws, will gradually be weakened by the existence of a government which viewed with utter contempt by the populace whom it supposedly represents.  

How can citizens be motivated to vote, and participate in the political process, when the politicians who earn those votes are so substantially influenced by those who fund their campaigns? Through what means do you encourage people to obey a myriad of complex laws and regulations, when these statutes are in some cases literally written by lobbyists for various business interests? How will a government led by politicians who are viewed as mercenaries for their most generous financial benefactors, still ask citizens to commit themselves to military service, and make incredible sacrifices for their country, while these same politicians shamelessly push friendly legislation for, and relax oversight upon, major donor industries like finance, energy, and telecommunications? 

As Americans start to see through this facade, the nation’s leaders will be increasingly unable to effectively lead, inspire, and ultimately, govern. People will be less likely to obey laws, or engage in civic-oriented behavior, such as voting, which is the lifeblood of a democratic society. The social and financial consequences of such a shift are rather frightening, as weakened regard for the rule of law imperils economic prosperity, while the disintegration of the ethos of shared citizenship will eviscerate the very fabric that holds a nation together. 

To some observers, all of this might sound like a doomsday scenario, a sort of “parade of horribles,” with a minimal chance of actually happening. Today’s political scene is teeming with discord and alienation, and rife with examples of wealthy interests in various industries obtaining favorable outcomes through donations. Yet, outright tax fraud, and widespread disregard for federal law, has not yet reached epidemic proportions. Why should that suddenly change for the worse? It is tempting, but dangerous, to assume that the status quo, one of keenly felt governmental corruption, but continued citizen compliance with the law , will sustain itself, and not degenerate into more widespread dysfunction. 

Corruption is an ancient poison, one with a deadly history of felling even the mightiest of powers. It was a major factor in the collapse of what was perhaps the most powerful empire the world has ever known: the Roman Empire. During that superpower’s inglorious latter days, the emperor Didius Julianus literally purchased his position in an auction, an act that was held in contempt by numerous Romans, and contributed to the eventual disintegration of the empire. More than a millennium later, corruption hastened the fall of China’s Yuan Dynasty, which at the time ruled most of present-day China and Mongolia, as assorted forms of bribery grew increasingly widespread amongst senior officials. 

Fast forward a few centuries, and a German monk named Martin Luther published his Ninety-Five Theses, which, amongst other critiques of corruption within the all-powerful Catholic Church, challenged the sale of indulgences, used to offer forgiveness and absolution from certain sins, by the Church. Luther argued that the sale of indulgences was a morally corrupt practice (one which also happened to be highly profitable for the Church), which needed to end. Luther’s writings eventually helped precipitate a momentous split within the Church, leading to the formation of various Protestant denominations, and a loss of the Church’s exclusive hold on the practice of Christianity. 

In each of these instances, a great power was felled not by outside enemies, but rather by internal greed and malfeasance. There is no reason to believe that the United States enjoys any sort of immunity from the historic perils of corrupt, compromised leadership. If this country hopes to preserve itself as a democratic republic, and as one which commands the loyalty and respect of it’s populace, there has to be a fundamental adjustment in how Americans view and understand their government, and more specifically, the relationship between money, politics, and influence.

Abraham Lincoln’s old adage “You can fool some of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time” still holds true. Even the best rebranding campaign Madison Avenue can gin up, in the absence of real action to curb the stranglehold of money on the political system, won’t alleviate Americans’ concerns about government corruption.

So what might be done here? Simply put, the flow of money into politics must be limited or altogether ceased. Whether this takes the form of a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United, or a campaign to refuse to vote for politicians who engage in prolific campaign fundraising, or other alternate measures, citizen trust in Washington DC won’t improve unless something drastic is done to stem the pipeline of cash from moneyed interests, to Capitol Hill and the White House. 

Towards the conclusion of the 1776 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin, and asked what sort of government the United States now had, a republic or a monarchy. Franklin responded, quite prophetically “A republic, if you can keep it.” In order to remain a functioning, vibrant democratic republic, the nation’s government must enjoy a baseline level of trust and respect from it’s citizens. 

This doesn't mean that citizens need to agree with every decision of their government, or support an overarching police or nanny state; to the contrary, such conformity and blind obedience, and dependence is fatal to a free, open and thoughtful society. Yet, a dynamic where the majority of a nation’s people believe that those at the helm of government have been irredeemably compromised by political donor largess, and so are directing their power and efforts to benefit those with the greatest ability to donate money, will also be untenable. As the perception of corruption spreads amongst the public (as is the case today), we will see an eventual rupture of the social contract concerning citizens’ and governments’ relationship with and obligations to each other, and a decline in citizen involvement with the democratic process. This is something a democracy simply cannot survive.

Concerns about tax evasion should not be mistaken for a call for excessive or burdensome tax rates. The American people, through their elected representatives, can reach a consensus as to the appropriate levels of federal taxes, and may well decide that such tax burdens should be very minimal. However, reaching such a decision through debate within the legislature, which was chosen with the consent of the governed, is far different from having alienated citizens, fed up with sending their wages to a government that only seems to respond to those who can cut large campaign checks, unilaterally deciding that the federal tax code does not apply to them, and so they need not meet their tax obligations. The latter approach threatens not just the economy, but the eventual destruction of democratic governance itself.  

In the absence of very substantial improvements in how Americans feel about governmental corruption, and without concerted efforts to improve the conditions that drive these negative sentiments, the long, remarkable run of the United States as a vibrant, functioning constitutional republic will draw to an ignominious end. Whether we will, as Franklin once asked, “keep” our republic, remains in grave doubt.