When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do… I will tell you that our system is broken.
— President Donald Trump, August 2015
Democratic corruption is when an elected leader betrays their responsibilities, enriching themselves or close allies instead of serving their constituents.
Unfortunately, most Americans consistently report perceiving widespread government corruption:
Is corruption widespread throughout the government in this country, or not?
We have an intuitive sense that money buys influence.
According to researcher Lee Drutman (The Business of America is Lobbying), private interests not only sense that money buys influence, they act on it:
“For every dollar spent on lobbying by labor unions and public-interest groups together, large corporations and their associations now spend $34.” (source)
And this is not a simple partisan issue:
OpenSecrets.org: “Corporations Give Big to Both Side… Democrats and Republicans Share Big-Dollar Donors”
Is all that money having any effect?
It appears so, per results like the infamous 2014 Princeton Study, an exhaustive review across more than 1700 different policy issues:
What is the cost of corruption?
The most obvious cost is our taxpayer funds being used for crony handouts.
But on top of this, researchers identify dire second-order effects:
Corruption can undermine the state’s ability to deliver inclusive economic growth in a number of different areas. When government functions are impaired, it can adversely affect a number of important determinants of economic performance, including macro financial stability, investment, human capital accumulation, and total factor productivity. Moreover, when systemic corruption affects virtually all state functions, distrust of government can become so pervasive that it can lead to violence, civil strife, and conflict, with devastating social and economic implications.
But a liquid democratic legislature could be orders-of-magnitude more resistant to corruption.
Right now, we have 535 elected legislators for the entire United States (100 Senate + 435 House).
Let’s assume, for simple analysis, that buying enough influence to tip one member’s vote on one issue costs $50,000.
That means that the cost to “capture” a majority of the legislature would be
(535 / 2) * 50,000: $13,375,000.
Now contrast that with a liquid democratic system, which could scale to include thousands of times as many active participants.
If the number of active legislators goes up by orders of magnitude, so does the total cost of capturing a majority of them.
It’s not that corruption goes away entirely, but it can become much more difficult.
And remember, liquid democracy means real accountability from representatives. If you no longer feel like they fight for your interests, you can replace them immediately, no questions asked.
“Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants”
One may still wonder if having many more lawmakers might make it easier for nefarious deals to slip through the cracks. This is a good question.
But compared to our current system: would it really be easier to organize blatant political corruption this way? More cost effectively?
Not even close.
Deep pocketed influencers might hypothetically be able to buy off a few financially desperate voters.
But right now, our 535 legislators each represent an average of 700,000 constituents, so the cost per voter would have to be 700,000 times less than the cost per legislator, just to break even.
In other words, you’d need to convince every citizen to sell out for only $1, for the same issue that would cost a single elected representative $700,000.
And all of this is supposed to happen, at scale, without leaving massive amounts of evidence?
Both briber and bribee would still be breaking the law, facing fines up to $10,000 and 2 years in jail, per instance.
It’s hard to see many people finding this worth the risk, for such a tiny payout.
So compared to our current situation, liquid democracy can have a massive impact towards reducing corruption in our legislatures.
Our practical strategy
There are many other efforts to reduce political corruption, and we whole-heartedly support them.
But importantly, working towards liquid representation has a huge strategic advantage, because we can begin to adopt it immediately, without waiting on the legislature to pass new laws against their own entrenched interests.
It only takes 51% of voters in a single district — enough to elect a Liquid Candidate — to improve the district’s representation.
This is inevitable.
Help make it happen by joining United today.
Our first priority today is to defeat utterly those forces of greed and corruption that have come between us and our self-governance.
— Granny D