The Extent of Corruption

An hour or so after I posted yesterday, the European Commission published a report on the extent of corruption within the European Union and its member states. The report looks at the provisions in each country to address the problem. It can be consulted as an EU wide report, or by each individual country.

The report identifies issues and specific measures to tackle corruption. It's worth looking at for a number of purposes -

• to see the extent of corruption in particular States
• to see the legal structure in place in each State
• to identify the differing techniques used to address corruption
• to see particular areas that individual States need to address

American Hustle

I have to be honest - I didn't even read any reviews of this film. The title itself could have been designed to switch my "off" button. Then a newspaper article about Congress mentioned that the film was set around a congressional scandal called "Abscam", suddenly I was interested. For my whips study, one of the challenges for 'whips' that I identified was scandal - in their pastoral role whips have to deal with the aftermath of scandal, and a number have involved certain whips themselves. Abscam was important for my studies because it created a major problem for the institution of Congress - with the first expulsion of a member for a very long time; and a number of members going to jail. Some of the characters had been members of the whips organizations. My current work into the 94th Congress also involved members of that Congress' freshman group. I had to go and watch the film!

I went on Friday (after watching "12 Years a Slave" a film I will discuss in a forthcoming post). I thoroughly recommend "American Hustle". It was a satisfying film on a number of levels.

There are some super "comedy" moments in this film. "Comedy" is probably my favourite genre - and this is an entertaining film. Secondly, I like the soundtrack. I'm a big Duke Ellington fan, and homage was made to him. As a teenager in the late seventies the "contemporary" music in the film was of my era. (I've bought the soundtrack!)

On a deeper level this was a film about the psychology of individuals attempting to manipulate others. An understanding of behaviour is essential for both politics and law - and while there is more in this "review" for my Law Students - on that ground alone law and politics students should pay careful attention to this film.

At an even deeper level this film is about the abuse of power. As Acton said - "Power tends to corrupt...absolute power corrupts absolutely". This is a story of corruption and abuse of power. The people ensnared in this sting operation, may not have even regarded themselves as corrupt. They (at least the politicians involved) may have considered that they were helping their constituents - that the money involved was necessary to ensure that they could continue helping their constituents (running for office was costly then - it is even more so then - and without election or re-election you can do little). But it was corrupt - and the message I stress to my law students - and to anyone else who will listen - is that the human mind is very good at persuading itself that what is in the interests of the individual is also in the best interests of everyone else. Blindness towards one's own wrongdoing is horrifyingly widespread. The "expenses scandal" at Westminster proved that. I was working there during the period of revelations - and spoke to people who just couldn't understand that what they had done - which seemed reasonable and justified to them - was seen by everyone else as outrageous.

The film also raises the issue of "entrapment". Would the people convicted have committed the crimes - if they hadn't been invited and encouraged to do so by undercover law enforcement officers? The whole issue of entrapment is something for law students to reflect upon. I remember looking at the issue while I was studying for my law degree - and the issue is rarely far from the news (even this week the UK news has involved the activities of undercover police officers and there role in the "crimes" of groups they infiltrated).

So - well worth the price of a cinema ticket. Of course, I wanted to get a bit more background - so consulted contemporary reports of the scandal (a reason why I'm so pleased that I was persuaded to subscribe to the New York Times (digital), which gives access to that paper's archives). I also bought and have almost finished "The Sting Man: The True Story Behind the Film American Hustle" by Robert W Greene. I read it using the Kindle App on my iPad - but saw it was on sale this morning at the Waterstones bookshop in Midsummer Place, Milton Keynes.

Of course the film has taken some liberties. Characters are merged - and the character's names have been changed, but as I think I'll be going back to see it again.

Money in Politics

In democracies around the world, the role of money in politics is giving rise to serious concerns. The Citizens United decision by the US Supreme Court has been criticised for its potential to deny "giving voters a genuine choice and giving candidates a fair chance" in that "it threatens to further marginalize candidates without strong financial backing or extensive personal resources, thereby in effect narrowing the political arena". [Director of OSCE]. In the US there have been a number of unsuccessful attempts to limit the costs of fighting elections, and reduce dependence of candidates on money. There is a very informative CRS paper available here.

In the UK the amounts of money concerned are significantly lower - but the debate has been active since the 1990s. In recent months the Committee on Standards published a report on "Political Party Finance". Last week the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee also published a short report in which it concludes: -

"Despite reforms in recent years to the funding of political parties, public concern about the integrity of current arrangements remains. All the main political parties have asserted the importance of resolving the issues around political party finance, but there is a notable lack of progress towards reaching such a resolution. This concerns us.


In this Report we highlight the opportunity represented by the publication, on 22 November 2011, of the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on Political Party Finance, to achieve a cross-party solution to the issue. The Government should set out how it intends to achieve a balanced, non-partisan solution, before public confidence in politics is further undermined by some future scandal."

In previous centuries there were concerns of politicians bribing voters. As a result in the UK we have laws to deal with "treating". One Council's website has a list of definitions

•Bribery - candidates or their supporters cannot give money or offer gifts to pursuade you to vote a particular way.


•Treating - candidates or their supporters cannot directly or indirectly give or provide food, drink or entertainment in order to influence a voter.

•Intimidation - candidates or their supporters cannot use undue influence or intimidation of any kind to influence the way you vote.

But the influence of money is greater today. Free Speech is important - but is it undermined if only the very rich can afford to meaningly participate?



(Note - hyperlinks - underlined text, will take you to relevant information and documents)

The Good Old Days?

"The King (George III) responded by giving (Henry)Fox the unofficial position of 'cabinet councillor and his Majesty's minister in the House of Commons'. His duty was to obtain a majority vote to approve the peace treaty (with France). How he did it would be no concern to the King, but he would have all the resources of the Crown at his disposal.

Fox vigorously attacked his new assignment, using the resources of the Crown to bribe the members of the House. He offered them places in the government, commissions in the military, or chairs in the universities. If such favors for themselves or their families failed, he offered money. John Almon wrote, 'The royal household has been increased beyond all former example. The lords and grooms of the bedchamber were doubled. Pensions were thrown about indiscriminately. Five and twenty thousand pounds were issued in one day, in bank notes of one hundred pounds each. The only stipulation was, Give us your vote. A corruption of such notoriety and extent had never been seen before.' According to Walpole, 'A shop was publicly opened at the Pay Office, whither the members flocked, and received the wages of their venality in bank-bills, even to so low a sum as two hundred pounds for their votes on the treaty'"

This account is to be found in Arthur H. Cash's biography 'John Wilkes: The Scandalous Father of Civil Liberty.' I've been enjoying this fascinating book about a hero of the fight for liberty in eighteenth century England. I will soon be at the point where his support for the American Revolution is described.

We might think that some MPs have not conducted themselves well in recent years. We may bemoan the way that governments are able to push legislation through with the force of their majority - but things have been worse in the past. Sometimes people paint a very rosy picture of parliaments in former days. The truth is that Westminster has seen some appalling behaviour. I'm glad to say that much of that behaviour is now illegal. Despite the view of MPs as sheep following the orders of the whips - MPs today are more prepared than ever to vote against their party. [The work of Lord Norton and Philip Cowley establishes this.] During the 1950s there was a whole session in which no backbencher voted against their Government - nowadays rebellions are frequent, and very few MPs have no record of 'rebellious behaviour'.