[EL] Study ranks states on corruption

[Mark Schmitt]

The other problem with the study is that it seems to be trying to show that
"big government" leads to more corruption, because their top ten states
spend 5% more per capita than the median. But that's totally distorted by
Alaska, which spends almost twice as much per capita as the next highest
state, and all the other top ten states are on the low end of spending.

Mark Schmitt
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Dan Meek <dan at meek.net> wrote:

>  The methodology of the study is backwards.  It measures corruption by the
> number of convictions in each state for corruption-type offenses:
>
> "The report provides the number of federal, state, and local public
> officials convicted of a corruption-related crime across the states."
>
> That is not a measure of corruption; it is a measure of corruption
> *fighting*.
>
> These sorts of studies (including this one) nearly always find that Oregon
> is not very corrupt.  But Oregon has no limits on campaign contributions,
> for example.  So a corporate contribution of $1 million (or any amount) to
> any candidate here is legal.  The same contribution in most other states
> would be illegal and would be categorized as a corruption-type offense.
> This study concludes that the lack of such law makes Oregon less corrupt.
>
> The study makes no sense.  It is like saying that, if murder was legal in
> Michigan, then Detroit would be the safest city in America.  After all,
> there would be zero convictions for murder there, if murder were legal.
>
> The Center for Public Integrity/PRI corruption study has a better
> methodology.  See http://www.stateintegrity.org.  It ranked New Jersey as
> the top state in fighting corruption.  The new study ranks it 31.  The
> CPI/PRI study has this top 10.  The number in parenthesis is the state's
> ranking in the new study.  Note in particular New Jersey, Mississippi, and
> Tennessee.
>
>    -   <http://www.stateintegrity.org/new_jersey>
>     1st New Jersey  (31) <http://www.stateintegrity.org/new_jersey>
>      -   <http://www.stateintegrity.org/connecticut>
>     2nd Connecticut  (22) <http://www.stateintegrity.org/connecticut>
>      -   <http://www.stateintegrity.org/washington>
>     3rd Washington  (2) <http://www.stateintegrity.org/washington>
>      -   <http://www.stateintegrity.org/california>
>     4th California  (20) <http://www.stateintegrity.org/california>
>      -   <http://www.stateintegrity.org/nebraska>
>     5th Nebraska (7) <http://www.stateintegrity.org/nebraska>
>      -   <http://www.stateintegrity.org/mississippi>
>     6th Mississippi (49) <http://www.stateintegrity.org/mississippi>
>      -   <http://www.stateintegrity.org/iowa>
>     7th Iowa  (6) <http://www.stateintegrity.org/iowa>
>      -   <http://www.stateintegrity.org/tennessee>
>     8th Tennessee  (45) <http://www.stateintegrity.org/tennessee>
>      -   <http://www.stateintegrity.org/rhode_island>
>     9th Rhode Island  (24) <http://www.stateintegrity.org/rhode_island>
>      -   <http://www.stateintegrity.org/kansas>
>     10th Kansas  (11) <http://www.stateintegrity.org/kansas>
>
> The new study has this top 10, with the CPI/PRI ranking in parenthesis.
> Note the differences for Oregon, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Utah, Colorado,
> Vermont, and Wisconsin.
>
>    1. Oregon  (14)
>     2. Washington (2)
>     3. Minnesota (25)
>     4. New Hampshire  (35)
>     5. Utah  (36)
>     6. Iowa (7)
>     7. Nebraska (5)
>     8. Colorado (33)
>     9. Vermont (26)
>     10. Wisconsin (24)
>
>
>   Dan Meek
>  503-293-9021 dan at meek.net 866-926-9646 fax
>
>
> On 6/17/2014 8:34 AM, Sean Parnell wrote:
>
> Ran across this study, purporting to rank all 50 US states (but not DC, it
> looks like) by how corrupt they are:
> http://www.policymic.com/articles/90963/the-10-most-and-10-least-corrupt-states-in-america
>
>
>
> I’m not going to vouch for the findings, just thought it was interesting
> given how often we talk here about eliminating or curbing corruption. I’d
> note that the findings don’t seem to correlate especially closely with
> either the campaign finance ‘reform’ or deregulation concepts of what
> either side might think would lead to a more or less corrupt political
> system, at least not at first glance – someone could probably do a closer
> analysis than I have time for and see if there’s anything beyond a weak
> correlation.
>
>
>
> Sean Parnell
>
> President
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC
>
> 6411 Caleb Court
>
> Alexandria, VA  22315
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140617/2aee1881/attachment.html>