What is Corruption?

At the very least, the term corruption has a very viewpoint-dependent definition. In this story from the New York Times:

In the end, the very word "corruption" has been bandied about so much that it now seems to mean a thousand different things, some of them perfectly legal.

Bashir Akinyele, a high school history teacher in Newark, said Mr. Corzine was "corrupt" for recently donating more than $2 million to black churches in New Jersey.

"This happens every year," Mr. Akinyele said exhaustedly. "The ministers go to their congregations and say, 'This is our guy, go vote for him.' To me, that seems like a form of corruption."

Mia Gibson, a musician in Camden, said Mr. Forrester was "corrupt" for making millions of dollars from his prescription-drug-benefits company.

"That man is so deep in big-business quicksand," she said, "how's he going to clean anything up?"

These paragraphs highlight a real problem in political circles, the shifting definitions of key words. As Obi-Wan Kenobi put it in Return of the Jedi, "You will find a great many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our point of view."

This NY Times story frames the question in the context of the New Jersey governor's race. The definitional problem has become so bad:

For starters, the cynicism across the state is so deep that many people do not believe either man will do much to clean up politics. And voters think that both candidates have their own baggage, leading them to define the candidate they like as pure and reform-minded and his opponent as dirty and corrupt.

Again, it is a point of view matter--like the term "special interest." But unlike "special interest," corruption should be fairly easily defined, i.e. engaging in behavior that is 1. illegal or 2. an abuse of power or position either pecuniary gain or to the detriment of an opponent.

In the two examples cited above, I see nothing illegal or abusive of power. Jon Corzine has so much money to throw around that if he gave some to churches who then endorse him that is fine--so long as he did not couch his contribution on the promise of an endorsement. Doug Forrester is successful businessman and therefore has made a great deal of money, perhaps in industries most people don't like but certainly need. Why then is his business dealings and profit motive somehow suspect?

Are we as a society creeping to a point where our future leaders will have to lead a completely monastic life before entering politics in order to avoid the possiblity of the appearence of corruption or conflict of interest? Unless we seek to change the public definition of debate, taking away from so-called good government groups the right to define the terms of public debate, we may very well be on that road.

Linked to the OTB Traffic Jam.