Something to be proud of: Oregon's public officials are the least corrupt in America
Kari Chisholm
Well, now this is interesting. Over at the Daily Beast, they've compiled a ranking of all 50 states (plus DC) for varying categories of white-collar crime -- embezzlement, forgery, racketeering, etc.
But most interesting is that they've included a ranking of the states for public corruption -- based on the conviction rate of public officials and elected leaders by the Department of Justice. Oregon came in dead last.
The top five worst for public corruption? Washington DC, Alaska, North Dakota, Louisiana, Mississippi. And the bottom five? Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Oregon. (Washington, btw, ranked #43.)
Hat tip to David Steves at the Register-Guard.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
10:38 a.m.
May 28, '10
Down right unAmerican.
6:02 p.m.
Jun 1, '10
This survey is absurd. The methodology used by the Daily Beast simple counted up convictions (and in some categories, arrests) for various crimes. Say in State A corrupt politicians are vigorously prosecuted. Say in State B the politicians are just as corrupt but are not prosecuted—because the prosecutions are controlled by those same corrupt politicians. The Daily Beast’s methodology says that State A is more corrupt, when the truth is obviously that State B is more corrupt.
Also, there are fewer prosecutions for corruption in Oregon, because Oregon has fewer laws against corruption. For example, Oregon is one of only 4 states that does not enforce limits on political campaign contributions. What former House Majority Leader Tom Delay was indicted for in Texas (funnelling corporate contributions to races for the state legislature) is perfectly legal in Oregon and is done all the time. Tom Delay was indicted in Texas, while those who do exactly the same thing in Oregon are not indicted. Does that mean Oregon is less corrupt? No.
This survey is completely worthless.
10:52 a.m.
May 28, '10
The whole West Coast is on the healthy side of this issue. The worst state of the group is Idaho at 29, followed by Arizona at 31. Government corruption seems to start in the District of Columbia and go down from there (Alaska being the exception. Thank you Sarah.)
11:09 a.m.
May 28, '10
hold it. NoDak? seriously? wow. growing up in Montana, we told North Dakotan jokes - i guess i still think of them that way. easy to think of LA being corrupt (they do have a colorful history) but ND?
11:58 a.m.
May 28, '10
I think the North Dakota (I'm a fourth-generation native....) numbers have to do with a couple things:
Not very many people. The ratio of convictions to people produces the number.
Everyone knows everyone else and their business. Really! It's pretty hard to get away with anything.
I haven't looked at the numbers, but I would be willing to bet that the amount of money involved is pretty small.
I remember one of the judges in my home town burning down a hotel he owned for the insurance money. It was very ineptly done and he got caught and did time.
2:07 p.m.
May 28, '10
That is pretty cool.
2:22 p.m.
May 28, '10
well, perhaps ours are just better at hiding stuff!
Seriously though, it's hard to put a true measurement on corruption, and I concede that using DoJ figures is probably the most practical.
3:31 p.m.
May 28, '10
Interesting factoid. I suppose formal convictions of public officials is something. It may also be more of a measure of how vigorously such crimes are actually investigated and prosecuted, than the actual commission of such crimes. Let's try a self-evaluation scale. On a scale between 1-10, precisely what is your level of corruption numerically???
12:01 a.m.
May 29, '10
Least prosecutions? Yes. Least corruption? I doubt it.
1:15 a.m.
May 29, '10
I've been waiting for your comment, given your longstanding view that Portland's a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
If it's true that Oregon is actually a corrupt state, how would you explain the lack of convictions?
Incompetent local federal prosecutors?
Excellent local defense lawyers?
Masters of corruption able to avoid getting caught?
If Oregon has an average amount of public corruption, but a below average number of convictions for public corruption, there's gotta be an explanation. And that explanation would be very, very interesting.
Tell us, Jack! What's your theory?
10:30 a.m.
May 29, '10
Kari,
My guess is that Jack has never lived in the East or South and therefore has no sense of what truly corrupt is.
12:31 a.m.
May 31, '10
Jack is from New Jersey. I think that's why he sees corruption everywhere.
9:12 a.m.
May 30, '10
Agreed Kari. Oregon doesn't hold a candle to historical corruption witnessed in Tammany Hall, Chicago or Louisiana. That is a good thing and something that we all can be proud of.
6:04 p.m.
Jun 1, '10
Jack may be too busy to reply to you, but I am not.
This survey is absurd. The methodology used by the Daily Beast simple counted up convictions (and in some categories, arrests) for various crimes. Say in State A corrupt politicians are vigorously prosecuted. Say in State B the politicians are just as corrupt but are not prosecuted—because the prosecutions are controlled by those same corrupt politicians. The Daily Beast’s methodology says that State A is more corrupt, when the truth is obviously that State B is more corrupt.
Also, there are fewer prosecutions for corruption in Oregon, because Oregon has fewer laws against corruption. For example, Oregon is one of only 4 states that does not enforce limits on political campaign contributions. What former House Majority Leader Tom Delay was indicted for in Texas (funnelling corporate contributions to races for the state legislature) is done all the time in Oregon. Tom Delay was indicted in Texas, while those who do exactly the same thing in Oregon are not indicted. Does that mean Oregon is less corrupt? No.
This survey is completely worthless.
9:47 a.m.
May 31, '10
Jack is probably right....or was in the past. Oregon is not now and hopefully never will be Illinois, New Jersey, or Louisiana but we've always been awfully smug about how pure our politics are. You'll note that two of the worst states aren't mentioned in the OP.
But there are new sheriffs in town, notably Attorney General John Kroger.
And while they don't always make A1 of the OREGONIAN there have been a marked increase of convictions for the offense of Official Misconduct, which interestingly is only a misdemeanor in Oregon.
It will be interesting to see these stats in say two years.
3:54 p.m.
May 29, '10
Leave to it to Jack to drag the negative out of the positive...
I'm proud to be a part of electing truly decent, good folk. Will we ever be perfect? Of course not, and we haven't been, but it's nice to know that Oregon has a high bar to maintain and polish.
12:50 p.m.
May 30, '10
As someone who has extensively worked issues through the legislature, I agree that corruption is less of a problem than most states towards the east. Even the legislators I disagree with are mostly good people, I just disagree with them. I have friends who work in states like Illinois and New York where the corruption is so rampant, it is expected.
In 1996 I was attending a political conference and the contingent from Illinois and Chicago especially were telling me how vote-by-mail in their area would be a 100% rigged election with no chance of an honest election.
Of course in Chicago, like many big cities out East, the Unions and the Mob are the same organization. Fortunately, that is not something we have had much to deal with here. I see the current coziness between the unions and the people running the state as unhealthy for Oregon, but it isn't criminal. They are just doing what special-interest groups always do: Make sure the playing field is overwhelmingly tilted their way.
However, just because a fraud-ridden vote-by-mail has apparently not happened, we must continue to ensure it won’t. Some of the measures towards statewide voter databases helps, but only if the local clerks validate. The push towards same-day registration and voting is to invite vote fraud. Since our enforcement system is complaint-driven and the investigators are overseen by a partisan office, there is the potential for selective enforcement. There is much still to do to make the system better. Just because we haven’t seen corruption lately is no reason to say it won’t ever happen. It’s the same logic as to why I have smoke detectors in my house.