The international problems surrounding bribery corruption and government primarily result from business dealings with foreign officials. Simplistically put, a businessperson often bribes a foreign official in order to get an exclusive foreign contract. This is most often against the law of both the businessperson's operating country and the country of the foreign official being bribed. Regardless, it would also foster greater corruption in government for every bribe sent to a foreign official.

 

 

Very often, this type of international bribery only occurs in countries where corruption and government already go hand in hand, as business officials simply take advantage of the already destabilized and corrupt system in those countries. Of late, there has been much more uproar, even from these countries, pushing for a move towards greater legal regulation and stricter laws aimed at reducing the relationship between corruption and government. Nonetheless, business leaders of major, internationally spanning businesses often take advantage of those countries with a great deal of corruption in government by bribing government officials to advance their companies with exclusive, illegally-gained contracts.

 

 

As an example, a report in 2006 stated that Switzerland was the country where bribes were least likely to be used by companies attempting to sell goods, while China, Russia, Turkey, and India were at the other end of the spectrum, having a strong tie between corruption and government. Each of these countries has a rapidly growing economy, and some, like China, are already crucial to the overall world economy. The fact that bribery remains such an effective tactic, in these countries where corruption in government is not as strictly prosecuted as it is in other, more developed countries, leads to situations in which a company attempting to avoid bribery in its business dealings will find itself significantly disadvantaged in these countries, and thus will often adopt bribery tactics simply in order to remain competitive.

 

 

This problem grows more and more acute as businesses realize that the only way they can survive in the modern world's market is by expanding into other nations. In 2003, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development put the Anti-Bribery Convention into effect in order to combat bribery based off such inherent corruption in government, but this Convention has encountered great difficulty in achieving success at reducing international bribery, as major players on the international market continue to allow such acts of corruption in government to take place on a regular basis.

 

 

Indeed, the problem is emphasized quite clearly by the fact that some companies will have perfectly legitimate business practices in developed countries, while exhibiting business practices oriented around bribery and corruption in less developed countries, where these businesses are less likely to be successfully prosecuted.

 

 

Corruption and government have often been linked to one another, simply because government often gives individuals great power, which can easily lead to improper use. But as countries grow more and more developed, governments become much more likely to attempt to weed out the corruption and bribery within. The answer to the problems of international bribery, then, lie primarily focused on developing the governments of such major market nations to a point where they will no longer accept bribery and other such practices without prosecution.

The relationship between taxation systems and bribery is complex and nuanced, as there is often no consistently clear relationship. Sometimes, receiving tax exemptions can be a form of accepting bribes, and other times, increased taxes are used to discourage accepting bribes. In general, the tax system of America and other nations is simply another governmental system, just as prone to manipulation through bribes as any other, and has its own regulations in order to prohibit and reduce accepting bribes.

 

 

One of the correlations between taxation and bribery comes the way in which some countries held beliefs about bribes being perfectly normal and would not prosecute individuals for accepting bribes as a basic part of the nation's overall system. In order to combat such attitudes and practices, in 1996 the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development instituted a policy prohibiting bribes from being treated as tax-deductible payments.

 

 

Prior to this policy's enaction, it would have been possible for nations to have bribery laws designed to make the bribe money officials might be given both perfectly legal and tax deductible. By instituting this policy, the OECD was attempting to send the message that accepting bribes should not be tolerated in any element of government. 

 

 

While criminalizing the practice of bribing foreign officials would also send this message, putting out the provision concerning bribes' potentially tax deductible status makes it clear that offering and accepting bribes is not considered a standard procedure of business and will not be tolerated any longer.

 

 

Simultaneously, however, tax exemptions are often used as a form of bribe in developing nations. Tax exemptions are not direct monetary gifts, and as a result, do not appear as immediately illegitimate. It is harder for the public to recognize a company receiving tax exemptions as the company accepting bribes than it would be if the bribes took the form of money or gifts changing hands.

 

 

Nonetheless, these tax exemptions are bribes, designed to engender better service and relationships with specific business companies, or even designed to somehow bring profit to a public official who may be linked to the company receiving the tax exemption. 

 

 

This form of the bribe is most often implemented in developing nations, as earlier mentioned, because in developed nations such tax exemptions would be much more quickly and easily recognized for what they are, thanks to the presence of the investigative media in most developed nations, coupled with the generally harsher stance most developed nations take towards bribery. 

 

 

The other major relationships between bribery and taxation is the result of an investigation of the effects of both upon business growth. According to the results of the investigation, bribery is actually significantly detrimental to the overall growth of business. Taxation is mildly reductive, but nowhere near the level of the bribe. 

 

 

Accepting bribes then not only undermines the legal and governmental systems in question, but also decisively decreases economic growth. Clearly, any taxes that could be implemented in order to eliminate the bribe would be be worth the reduced growth cost of the tax.

Bribery, though easily acknowledged as an undesirable, damaging practice, is very difficult to remove or reduce because of its very nature. A bribe is very often seen in government, perhaps more than in any other area, and the problem of combating bribes within the government is exacerbated dramatically. After all, how does one ensure that the individual who is meant to be enforcing government regulations against the bribe is not simultaneously taking bribes to ignore the illegal practices of others? If the system which is used to fight the problem is also often the source of the problem, then correcting the problem would appear to be highly difficult, at least.

 

 

The most obvious and clear method of combating bribes is actually greater public knowledge and reporting of government business. If the news media is capable of performing in depth examinations of the government such that bribes and other forms of corruption will be found and exposed, then the public will likely become increasingly angry with a government that allows for such practices. The power of public will and opinion would, in that case, become the primary means by which to address a bribe and other forms of corruption, as the public would demand some form of fundamental governmental shift so as to reduce bribery, whether it be by electing new officials or even by instituting a new government.

 

 

But this strategy encounters many difficulties, not the least of which is that spreading accurate, useful information, such as information on bribes accepted by or given to government officials, is not easy. After all, the government which the news media would be examining and investigating is also likely going to have some power in terms of controlling what the news media is or is not allowed to say. In countries developed enough to have full, genuine freedom of speech, bribes have likely been significantly reduced in both number and efficacy. Thus, in order for such information to be spread, there would have to be a system in place for spreading it, and those countries which suffer most from bribes would also likely be the least equipped for such a spread of information.

 

 

Furthermore, even if the public is given information, the act of changing the government, as described above, may not be as easy or even as nonviolent as would be ideal. Countries with a high number of bribes are also likely to have a low level of liberty or citizen control of the government. Thus, any attempts by the public to affect the government would have to be very focused and strong to actually make a difference.

 

 

Even in utterly developed countries, bribery still exists. It is possible to reduce the number of bribes within a government to very low levels, but it is likely that bribery of some form or another will exist, especially in the lower levels of government, which are often under less scrutiny.

 

 

For example, though in general bribes and corruption are highly investigated and prosecuted in the upper levels of the American Government, a bribe from a speeding violator to the officer who pulled him or her over might not be noticed or discovered with the same alacrity. The bribe, then, remains one of the fundamental problems of any form of government, the struggle against which will never be over.

No better example stands out of recent political corruption than that of Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois and his attempt to sell Barack Obama’s vacated senatorial seat. This was a blatant attempt on Blagojevich’s part to seek a bribe in return for the senatorial seat. 

There was no legitimate defense Rod Blagojevich could have made for what he attempted to do, as it represented the highest possible violation of power, the most heinous possible form of political corruption. To think that a seat on one of the most powerful bodies of the American governmental system could have been sold is to imagine the utter subversion of American democracy.

Rod Blagojevich was not exactly innocent, even prior to his major wrongdoing in this incident. Throughout his political career, he had been involved in a dozen separate Federal investigations, the indictment and trial of Tony Rezko, and an incident in which he supposedly withheld State funds from the Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago. In 2008, prior to his involvement in the incident with the senatorial seat, Blagojevich was under investigation relating to his role in the sale of the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field. While he may not have been directly, blatantly convicted, his entire tenure in the political profession was very much tainted with political corruption.

Then, in 2008, President Barack Obama was elected to the Presidency and vacated his senatorial seat. Blagojevitch decided to take advantage of his role in the proceedings. As Illinois Governor, he was given the final decision as to who would fill in then President-Elect Obama’s empty Senate seat. He was recorded saying on the phone, “It’s a f***ing valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.” He also threatened to take the Senate seat for himself if he did not receive the price he sought.

That price included such elements as (1) a good, consistent salary for himself, (2) a position for his wife on corporate boards where she would earn substantial amounts of money, (3) an official position for himself as an ambassador or otherwise to Serbia, (4) campaign funds for his own campaigns.

Fortunately, as was mentioned, the call was recorded because of Rod Blagojevich’s prior involvement in instances of political corruption. He was already under investigation at the time of this incident and FBI investigators did not have much difficulty procuring the evidence necessary to prove Blagojevich’s wrongdoing.

Rod Blagojevich was arrested at 6:15 a.m. on December 9, 2008. He made bail and began a campaign to attempt to prove his innocence, going so far as to appear on television shows proclaiming his innocence and his confidence that he would be acquitted. Unfortunately for him, Blagojevich lost his case. He was deemed “unfit to serve” when he did not resign and was impeached from his position as Illinois governor. Since then, he has been indicted by a Federal grand jury for his actions. He still proclaims his innocence. 

While Rod Blagojevich’s name is now practically synonymous with political corruption, the good news is that he has not gotten away with his crimes. He has become an example of wrongdoing, rightfully prosecuted and punished. His attempts to solicit bribery were clearly illegal and improper, and it is to the credit of the American justice system that he was not allowed to get away with these actions.

The political lobbying system of America is often believed to be one of the primary difficulties to the proper functioning of America’s representational system of government. Bribery is just one of the supposed ways in which the lobbying system is perceived to perpetrate wrongdoing. The purpose of lobbyists is simplistically to meet with legislators and explain the nature and goals of the organizations they represent in the hopes of convincing those legislators to become somewhat friendly to the lobbyist’s cause. 

But lobbying often involves donations and gifts to those legislators’ political groups in the hopes of favorably influencing those legislators. Although this sounds like bribery, lobbying and bribery are two different acts. However, it is from this confusion that many of the negative views of lobbying arise. 

The primary difference between bribery and lobbying, or to be exact, the kind of contributions most representative of lobbying, is that in bribery there is a specific request being made. When a legislator asks for a specific monetary amount in exchange for the legislator’s vote, bribery is taking place. But when the legislator’s political party is instead given a donation from a lobbyist, it need not influence the legislator in any particular fashion. No agreement or deal was made for the donation, and as such, it is not considered bribery. 

Essentially, the best way to understand the difference between lobbying and bribery is that bribery involves quid pro quo, “this for that,” a clear and definitive exchange of one good or service for another. Lobbying is a donation without strings attached meant to influence, but not of necessity leading toward a specific action on the part of the individual or group receiving the donation. 

Many attempts have been made over the course of American politics to lead to greater transparency and regulation for lobbying in order to help better define the line between lobbying and bribery and to find those instances when the line is crossed. These include the Executive Branch Reform Act, which required officials of the Executive Branch to report any “significant contact” from any “private party” into a publicly accessible database, such that any meetings with a lobbyist would need to be reported. 

Additionally, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 was an attempt to define the ethical standards required of lobbyists and to reform the lobbying system towards a more transparent state. But even with these regulations in place, bribery could still be passing by, covered up as lobbying because the two are so closely related. 

It is unlikely that America’s lobbying system will ever be truly overturned, despite claims that it damages American representational procedure and ensures that a small group of powerful companies is able to control important political issues. But attempting to ensure that lobbying is transparent, and that it does not act as a shade under which to hide acts of bribery, is a worthwhile goal.

Every company and person has a right to donate money to those parties most likely to serve their goals, and they then have the right to withhold that money should those parties not actually serve their goals. That is the ideal nature of lobbying, and as long as it remains in that vein, then lobbying need not be eliminated. But no one has a right to perpetrate bribery, especially not under the guise of lobbying.

Pay to Play politics refers to a type of system in which the dominant idea is quid pro quo, or paying something in exchange for something else. Specifically, Pay to Play politics involve a system under which a payer must engage in political fundraising by making a campaign contribution to a specific group in order to obtain certain clear benefits, such as no-bid Government contracts. Policies of the Pay to Play variety have come under a great deal of criticism, not least because they are dangerously close to the practice of bribery. 

 

 

Of course, often Pay to Play is used to refer to systems which are not necessarily quite as blatant as quid pro quo would sound. Pay to Play can refer simply to the political fundraising system, under which candidates are believed to require a certain amount of money in their campaigns simply to be able to ably compete. In this case, the Pay to Play system is not something concrete, but is simply a reference to a matter of practicality, in which all candidates must go through a great deal of political fundraising in order to actually have a chance at winning the political race.

 

 

The Pay to Play system here is also considered problematic because of the nature of political spending and how it seems to be on the road to greater and greater importance in the political fundraising system. When one candidate can win an election simply by virtue of outspending his or her opponent, it has subverted the entire political campaign system of America, which should, theoretically, be based on merit and popular approval, not on political fundraising.

 

 

Congress has taken action to attempt to limit Pay to Play politics, including the addition of measures which would prevent anyone with State contracts above a certain annual value from contributing funds to the Government official who gave out those contracts. In general, Congress has attempted to make transparent some of the transactions which enabled Pay to Play politics, such that they could be successfully stopped in the future. By ensuring that the Government and public are well aware of any campaign contributions being made, then Congress makes itself much better able to regulate Pay to Play politics and prevent any bribery buried therein.

 

 

The most famous recent instance of Pay to Play politics came from Illinois, with Governor Rod Blagojevich. Blagojevich attempted to sell the U.S. Senate seat left open when Barack Obama became the President-elect. In this instance, there was no difference between the Pay to Play nature of the incident and the Federal crime of bribery.

 

 

Sometimes, Pay to Play is legitimized, as those who practice it specifically seek to keep it legally defensible, but in almost all cases Pay to Play has a very great similarity to bribery. In Blagojevich's case, there was no way to misconstrue that he was misusing his political power in order to obtain funds, which is a casebook definition of seeking a bribe.

 

 

Pay to Play politics are generally frowned upon by lawmakers and especially by Good Government advocates. The practice and its quid pro quo elements smack far too strongly of bribery, regardless of how much it is gauged in terms of mere campaign contributions. But because of the success of such policies in obtaining funds for perpetrating politicians, it is hard to believe that Pay to Play politics will vanish entirely any time soon.

A prime area of Government for bribery to take root lies in the American political campaign system. Political corruption of this sort would take a somewhat different form than governmental corruption. Instead of one individual bribing another to directly use his or her Government Office-granted powers in favor of the briber, bribes in political campaigns are more designed to heavily influence a political candidate's policies and ideals in favor of the briber's own interests.

 

 

Campaign contributions are legal in America, which is not necessarily true in other, similar countries. Often enough, campaign contributions would be viewed as the source of political scandals, as opposed to regular practice of political campaigns. The situation is complicated by the fact that most political campaigns do require some form of funding, and especially at the higher levels, where there are so many voters to reach, the amount of money required can skyrocket. As a result, political campaigns seek money, but they also seek to avoid any accusations of political scandals that might result from taking that money. 

 

 

In the United States, laws have been put into place in order to combat potential political scandals in campaign finance by requiring that all monetary contributions to the claim need to be publicly disclosed along with the use of those monetary contributions. In other words, any political corruption resulting from a candidate being strongly swayed by a donator's contribution would be readily apparent to anyone who chose to look.

 

 

The biases of a candidate could be easily made clear by seeing who donated to the candidate's campaign. This is the reason that many other countries frown on America's campaign contribution policies. They see these policies as still being filled with political corruption, with the only caveat being that technically, this corruption is made visible. But the number of Americans who look for such information is relatively small and such transparency is not as effective as it is meant to be.

 

 

Other systems of political campaign finance, designed to eliminate political corruption of this nature, include running political parties entirely off of subscriptions, or completely banning corporate funding for political campaigns. Spending limits are another commonly used tactic, as are contribution limits that would set a boundary on the value of any given contribution.

 

 

These strategies and regulations do have an effect on limiting political corruption, but they are not without drawbacks, such as increased membership fees for political party members, and significantly reduced campaign penetration, meaning that fewer people would be reached by any given political campaign. 

 

 

Furthermore, the likelihood of such strategies being implemented in America is very small because of the power of such would-be contributors in the election system. Indeed, much criticism of America's political campaign finance system originates from the worry that the power of such corporations over politics and candidates makes the American system inherently full of political scandals. 

 

 

It remains near impossible to be able to actually measure corruption, and as such, it's difficult to tell exactly how influenced the political campaign system is by such political scandals. Any revelation of illegal campaign donations would still cause a major political scandal, but apart from such a clear, obvious incident, the political corruption in the American political finance system remains submerged.