James Wesley:
Did you see this article: Study ranks Wyoming’s corruption risk as high, and this map? How is it that states like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming could be so corrupt? That doesn’t seem possible, and it contradicts all my prior research about The American Redoubt. What is you take on this? Thanks, – Kevin L.
JWR Replies: The study that they cited was on a perceived potential for corruption (a hypothetically calculated “risk of corruption”). The ratings were skewed, because they were in part based upon the willingness of state governments to report to the Federal government. Some states rightly see that as kowtowing and a violation of their state sovereignty.
In essence, searching for corruption by searching for states with lax anti-corruption laws is illogical. Did it ever occur to the researchers that anti-corruption “sunshine” laws could be lax in some states simply because there has never been a problem with systematic corruption in those states? For Wyoming to rank higher than New Jersey, Michigan, and Illinois for risk of corruption is absolutely absurd.
If you do a web search on “Wyoming corruption”, you will see that the top 10 hits are nearly all to that same same hypothetical study. That is because there are hardly any real incidents of systematic corruption in the state.
Look at the states that got the lowest ratings: Georgia, Michigan, Maine, North Dakota, South Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia and Wyoming. Now I find it credible that there is systemic corruption in Michigan and perhaps in Virginia. But as for the rest on the list with “F” grades ,widespread corruption not very likely. If you look at the states where there have actually been corruption problems, New Jersey seems to dominate the news. But according to this ostensibly neutral study, New Jersey is far less “at risk” than Maine and Wyoming. In fact, based on their skewed metrics, New Jersey gets a “B” grade, while Idaho gets a “D-“, and Wyoming gets an “F.” That is absurd, on its very face. And how does Illinois get a “C” grade? The bottom line is this: Unless you ask the right questions, you are going to get the wrong answers. This is classic case of a study made with skewed metrics. Because of its flawed premise, the study was a waste of $1.5 million, part of which indirectly came from U.S. taxpayers. (Since NPR financially supports Public Radio International.)
We should also question who conducted the study: The Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity, and Public Radio International. They all have considerable bias. The Center for Public Integrity has a clear statist “big government” bias. One of their biggest supporters is George Soros. That alone spells volumes. Global Integrity is also statist and has a globalist “supranational” agenda. And Public Radio International has a bias that is clearly both statist and leftist/collectivist. When you come down to it, what result could you expect from these three organizations? I suspect that they covertly despise the so-called “Red States” and small government conservatism. Take a few minutes to read this: Fuhgeddaboutit! NJ top state for fighting corruption. And that, mind you, comes from left-of-center MSNBC.
The only recent claims of corruption in Wyoming that popped up came from an anonymous ex-convict oilfield worker with an apparent axe to grind, so his credibility is suspect.
This is not to say that there aren’t some corruption problems at the county level, inside The American Redoubt. For example, there was recently a case that was well-publicized, in Lake County, Montana. But there, five brave sheriff’s deputies blew the whistle on the corrupt practices, in righteous indignation. And that, by the way wasn’t a case of a politician taking fat envelopes of cash as a bribe for awarding some garbage hauling contract or sewage treatment plant contract. Rather, the key charge in this case was about a County Sheriff who thought he had some special right to jacklight deer and elk, and who had the temerity to brag about it.
Now I don’t claim that politics in the Redoubt States are as pure as the driven snow. But please recognize that these states were unfairly slammed by this biased study.