If you've recently seen the headlines declaring Wyoming as one of the most corrupt states in America, you might be scratching your head. Not that long ago the media instructed us that Wyoming was the "best run state" in the nation. Now, enter stage left, the Center for Public Integrity. This self-styled "reform" organization suggests that Wyoming is more corrupt than the Sopranos' New Jersey, more corrupt than Blagojevich's Illinois, and perhaps more corrupt than Marion Barry's D.C.
The Center's report does a fine job confusing the definition of corruption in the first place. Its rhetorical sleight of hand is important to observe, because the Center believes that state governments with more intrusive laws are "less corrupt" states. Those states with less regulatory machinery and less power wind up being "more corrupt." However, John Steinbeck would remind us "power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts ... perhaps the fear of a loss of power." Maybe what's really behind this odd definition of corruption is this very fear.
Much of the impulse behind these so-called good government accountability projects rests not so much in preventing actual corruption (bribery, pay-offs, and the like) but out of a fear that the public might become active, engaged, and therefore powerful in the electoral process. This is the incumbent political class having fear of accountability for their actions. Folks, that's not corruption.
In fact, reasonable minds might not agree with the Center's definition of corruption. Just because the Center says a policy is "wrong" doesn't mean it makes a state "corrupt." For example, the Center gives Wyoming an "F" for "political financing" because it feels that existing laws that regulate speakers, parties, and candidates are not effective. Of course, these types of laws usually make it more difficult for speakers, parties, and candidates to have a voice in the electoral process -- and have been routinely thrown out by the courts. The end result is the Center favors laws that regulate the political process more, even if they might be constitutionally suspect, and labels states without them as "corrupt."
The Center gives Wyoming an "F" for its lack of "judicial accountability" because it doesn't care much for its method of regulating courts. It simply prefers states with more intrusive laws that regulate judicial campaigns and judges' lives.
Again, this is an area that reasonable minds can and do differ about. Do you favor an open and competitive process for the selection of judges or a more closed and quiet one? Do you favor vigorous public involvement in these campaigns or prefer judicial nominations occur behind closed doors? The Center just prefers centralization, more restrictions, and less public engagement and gives an "F" to those who differ in opinion. This is not the mark of corruption.
To be certain, the Center does offer a helpful insight into many states, but its simplistic, and often wrong, labeling of states as "corrupt" or "clean" based on its own wrongheaded policy preferences is absurd. The Center's report rightfully identifies an issue the Wyoming Liberty Group has tracked in the past, where the members of the legislature have exempted themselves from much of the state open records law. But so much of the Center's analysis favors controversial and often unconstitutional regulations it wishes more states would adopt and labels those states who haven't adopted their view "corrupt."
A fundamental question should be put to the architects of the study in question: what is the true nature of corruption? In the American tradition, we favor open and competitive elections with a rich public discourse. All too often, we take this for granted, forgetting the sacred nature of the rights we enjoy while those worldwide are imprisoned just for speaking up. But America is a nation where the people are sovereign, and masters, over their leaders, our servants. The truest measure of an upright government rests not in how many obscure regulations it imposes on its citizenry, but upon how respectful it is of their natural rights.
And what better a state to represent that robust tradition than Wyoming?
