Most people’s answer is greed. That is a necessary condition, but it is not the whole story. The other critical ingredient is government policies that create the incentive for corruption in the first place.
A perfect example is the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal. Abramoff is a lobbyist recently convicted of multiple felonies in connection with Indian tribes seeking federal authorization to operate casinos.
If state governments allowed anyone to operate casinos, rather than imposing substantial barriers that can only be overcome with Federal intervention, the Indian tribes would never have needed Abramoff’s services. So this type of corruption would never have occurred.
The fact that government restrictions breed corruption does not by itself make such laws undesirable. A law against murder gives those who are caught an incentive to bribe police, judges, and jurors. Yet this does not suggest repeal of the laws against murder.
In the case of gambling, however, the government restrictions make no sense. Gambling is entertainment that millions enjoy every day; the fact that some gamblers do not control their impulses is no reason to bar the activity. Most problem gamblers will find alternative ways to gamble, like internet gambling or day trading, if legal gambling is not available.
The appropriate policy response to the Abramoff incident is therefore not more restrictions on lobbying; that simply creates more reason for people to break the law. The right response is to eliminate legal restrictions, such as those on gambling, that make little sense in the first place.
Comments