State and Local Government Corruption - Literature review Example

and Local Government Corruption Local government corruption is one of the greatest continuing dilemmas that cause problems in any society (Local Government 1992, pg 1). In broad terms, political corruption is the misuse of public (governmental) power for unlawful, usually clandestine confidential benefit and all forms of government are vulnerable in practice to political corruption. Degrees of corruption vary greatly, from minor uses of authority and backing to do and return favors, to institutionalized bribery and even extortion, influence peddling, and fraud (Political Corruption 2005). Local government corruption could include social benefits programs, government property and services, purchasing frauds, corrupted inspections, tainted land use decisions and a raft of embezzlements of government funds (Local Government 1992). A key focus involved troubling examples where organized crime has capitalized on the presence of municipal corruption. What constitutes corruption differs depending on the country or jurisdiction. Certain political funding practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another (Political Corruption 2005). In some countries, police and prosecutors have broad discretion over whom to arrest and charge and the line between discretion and corruption can be difficult to draw, as in racial profiling. In countries with strong interest group politics, practices that could easily constitute corruption elsewhere are sometimes sanctified as official group preferences (Political Corruption 2005). Corruption is hard to minimize because it involves confidentiality and too often encounters public acceptance. Investigations have become hard and multifaceted. Investigators must conquer outdated attitudes in the midst of many truthful public officials and private citizens that whistle blowing is useless or even unsafe (Local Government 1992, pg. 7). In the late 1960s and 1970s, major reform laws gave the state of New Jersey the commission, statewide grand juries, a state division of Criminal Justice, full-time prosecutors, an Election Law Enforcement Commission, the power to conduct electronic surveillance and grant immunity to prospective witnesses, increased penalties and a longer statue of limitations for official corruption and the ability to disqualify convicted officials from holding public office or employment (Local Government 1992, p. 8). However, State legislation is no good if government officials in practice do not support it. Corruption is particularly widespread in the local government construction projects. Just recently, a major engineering firm that has given $3 million in campaign contributions over the past 25 years and New Jersey has decided it will no longer donate to politicians (Jackson 2005). The on-line database of the Election Law Enforcement Commission(ELEC) lists 1,205 contributions from the firm and its employees, worth nearly $3 million, since 1981 (Jackson 2005). The real total is larger, because ELEC's database does not include contributions to municipal candidates and committees or contributions to federal candidates, who have also benefited from Schoor DePalma's generosity (Jackson 2005). A search of the FEC's Web site, which tracks federal campaign contributions, turned up at least $150,000 in the past five years from the company (Jackson 2005). Schoor DePalma's contributions peaked in 2003, when the ballot included candidates for all 120 seats in the New Jersey Legislature (Jackson 2005). Corruption such as this should be condemned. Such corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as procedures are ignored, resources are siphoned off, and public offices are bought and sold. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance (Political Corruption 2005). Corruption also lowers fulfillment with construction, environmental, or other rules, reduces the quality of government services and infrastructure, and increases budgetary pressures on government (Political Corruption 2005). Additionally, corruption also creates economic disturbance in the public sector by re-channeling public investment into capital projects where bribes and kickbacks are more widespread (Political Corruption 2005). Officials may increase the technical complication of public sector projects to cover up or make way for such dealings, thus further distorting investment (Political Corruption 2005). Even eminent domain is another area of concern for corruption watchdogs. Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation (Bhatnagar 2005). Local governments have more and more extended the range of public use to include commercial entities such as shopping malls or independent retail stores (Bhatnagar 2005). Critics of the procedure uphold that local governments are too speedy to call upon eminent domain on behalf of huge businesses because of the prospective for tax revenue generation and job creation (Bhatnagar 2005). For example, The City of Lakewood, Ohio was trying to use eminent domain to force Jim and Joanne Saleet out of their house in order to make way for expensive condominiums (Eminent Doamin 2004). Jim Saleet worked in the pharmaceutical industry, paid off his house and then retired. Now, he and his wife plan to spend the rest of their days there, and pass their house on to their children (Eminent Domain 2004). However, Lakewood's mayor, Madeleine Cain, has other plans. She wants to destroy the Saleets' home including 55 other homes, four apartment buildings, and more than a dozen businesses nearby (Eminent Domain 2004). Another example of possible corruption in eminent domain is in Georgia, some lawmakers want to pass a law that would permit private companies to take property for their own use from individual citizens (Editorial 2005). A Virginia law firm, which expects to benefit financially if the law is passed, has been lobbying for such a law, which would be in conflict with the spirit of eminent domain in its purest form (Editorial 2005). The misuse of eminent domain is fundamentally wrong, and opposing to the Constitution for the government to take property from one private owner, and hand it over to another private owner, just because the government thinks that person is going to make more productive use of the land (qtd. from Eminent Domain 2004). The Fifth Amendment is very specific in its statement that private property shall not be taken for public use without due process and just compensation (Misuse of Eminent Domain 2005). Local governments across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they are replacing (Eminent Domain 2004). Now, people who do not want to sell their homes at any price - just to see their land go to another private owner - are fighting back (Eminent Domain 2004). Most citizens know that property can be taken for a road. However, nobody thinks that property can be taken to give it to his or her neighbor or the large business down the street for his or her economic benefit (qtd. from Eminent Domain 2004). Eminent domain is a good thing. It is important. It is necessary when used wisely. Using eminent domain to deprive innocent people of their property so that others can turn it into money is immoral and corrupt (Houston home journal). The dilemma with eminent domain since the recent Supreme Court disaster has been the definition of "public use." According to the Supreme Court's interpretation, you can lose your home to other private organizations if it will increase tax revenue for the local government (Misuse of Eminent Domain 2005). Local government corruption is an evil practice and should be blocked, or at least minimize. It often support criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and criminal prostitution, it is not restricted to these organized crime activities, and it does not always support or shield other crimes (Political Corruption 2005). Not only does corruption come in the form of attacks from outside, it also encompasses "skimming" by insiders, often in the form of embezzlement and nepotism (Political Corruption 2005). If allowed to continue, corruption could become customary and accepted way of doing business in some locales. Whenever something needs to be done, some officials and business people feel the need to give money. They regard this practice as merely providing financial incentives for the officials (Local Government 1992, p. 6). Corrupt officials, like other criminals, often downsize their behaviors. This partly explains how such individuals, who often lead otherwise exemplanary lives, so readily breach the public trust (Local Government, p. 7). Moreover, corrupt officials may give way to alcohol or other drug dependencies, family health or financial problems or gambling compulsions (Local Government, p. 7). Lastly, corruption must be stop because it has bad effects on economy, politics, administration, and institution. Corruption undermines economic development by creating substantial disturbance and inadequacy (Political Corruption 2005). In the political realm, it diminishes democracy and good governance by breaking or even subverting formal processes (Political Corruption 2005). Corruption in elections and in legislative bodies reduces accountability and distorts representation in policymaking; corruption in the judiciary compromises rule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the unfair provision of services (Political Corruption 2005). References Bhatnagar, Parija. (2005). Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza Retrieved Nov. 13, from Cable News Network Web site:. "EDITORIAL: Misuse Of Eminent Domain." (2005). The Journal. Retrieved Nov. 13, 2005, from The Journal, Houston Home Journal. Mywebpal.com. Web site: http://news.mywebpal.com/ partners/963/public/news607349.html. "Eminent Domain: Being Abused" (2004).60 minutes. Retrieved Nov. 13, 2005, from CBS Worldwide Inc.Web site: Read More