Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois
Polls

* From the recent Rasmussen poll of likely Illinois voters….

* Who is more typically more corrupt… politicians or CEO’s of Major companies?

56% Politicians
21% CEO’s of major companies
24% Not sure

* The Question: Who is typically more corrupt: Illinois politicians or CEO’s of major companies?

Explain fully, please. Thanks.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 10:42 am

Comments

I’m not sure. But as recent history shows, corruption, in the broadest sense of the word, among CEOs and the financial Masters of the Universe can do a whole lot more damage than any Illinois politician ever could.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 10:51 am
Is “corrupt” a moral term or a legal term?

According to Pat Collins’ bio, he’s being paid handsomely to routinely defend corporate clients from accusations of white collar crimes.

I’m gonna go with “corporations.”

Moreover, I’d be willing to bet that the amount of “wasteful spending” in state government pales in comparison to the wasteful spending in Illinois’ private sector.

The Chicago Tribune just gave $13 million in bonuses to management AFTER declaring bankruptcy and laying off scores of front-line workers.

THAT kind of wasteful spending is routine in corporate America, and I’ll bet it costs taxpayers 100 times more than all of the “government waste” combined.

NOT that I’m excoriating corporate America. If you study physics or even biology, you understand that building a waste-free ANYTHING is impossible. And in fact, trying to be 100% waste-free often makes you less efficient than just accepting some waste.

It’s the old 80-20 rule, pure and simple.

But I DO take issue with Corporate America demanding some level of public efficiency that they themselves cannot even peer at, let alone reach.

To paraphrase renowned business author Jim Collins, “Government should not be run more like a ‘business,’ because 80% of businesses are poorly run.”

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 10:52 am
Corruption tends to be in the eye of the beholder. Based on convictions, the pols in Illinois are leading the way.

Having said that, in my view, corruption stems from a desire to take shortcuts to get results. Cutting corners, sloppiness, insider dealing, quid-pro-quo arrangements, all of these are corrupt practices and most the result of taking a short cut rather than using merit or a demonstrated, deliberate approach to achievement.

Watch out for shortcuts. In the board room or in the statehouse, shortcuts lead to handcuffs.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 10:55 am
This is one of the more loaded QOTDs. Broad-stroking all politicians and corporate CEOs and then determining who is most corrupt really does a disservice to the vast, vast majority in both camps who are people of absolute integrity. Both have bad apples and our best bet is to catch and prosecute anyone and everyone engaged in corruption since it takes at least one person on each side to create a corrupt event.

That said, I think I’d have to say the potential for corruption rest more on the side of politicians. Since politicians produce no tangible product other than laws and the administration of programs, their hand is usually to one extended first. Pay to play was just that…pay up first and then we’ll look at your product/service. It is never play then pay…

Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 10:58 am
Politicians, easily. Wordslinger: The failure to fix our long-term financial imbalance is a far bigger threat than CDS’s ever were. Locked-up credit markets don’t compare to federal default/massive dollar devaluation.

I think political professionals have an overly poor perception of executives because they largely talk to those who are lobbying/looking for bailouts/or are affiliated with the Tribune or ST. As representative a sample as me judging politicians based on occupants of the IL gov’s office.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 11:01 am
As I survey the carnage of the Bush Administration Wall Street Scandal it is impossible to pick anyone other than corporate CEOs. Predatory lending, subprime loans, credit default swaps, mortgage backed securitiesrating agencies, lazy-stupid pension funds and a stunning lack of regulation/oversight helped take down the U.S. Economy at all levels. Corporate CEOs bankrolled the efforts to block regulation/oversight or simply ignored the law.

The media either dismissed attempts regulate or investigate (Wall Street Journal called it the “credit crunch”) until the market went into free fall and everyone’s investments tanked.

The car companies failed due to their credit arms

Commercial mortgages should be next. If is were a pol, the do gooders and watch dogs would be howling. Since it is the members of their board and donors there is not a peep.

Of course the Tribune is the head of the class,actually grand poobaah.
They hav two, count em, two fed probes for their crooked ESOP & Wrigely schemes, refuse to give up any info and send their reporters our to bark about weak Freedom of Information changes.
Game,set, match CEOs win in a romp.
What utter nonsense.
BTW I believe it is fair to lump the media together just like the media handles all pols
Have a great day

Comment by Reddbyrd Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 11:06 am
Question hinges on definition of corruption.

That should be a QOTD. Without relying on the law (legal vs. illegal) define “corruption”.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 11:07 am
Politicians are much more corrupt. A politician can hand out government money, change a regulation, or a zoning ordinance. Politicians have monopoly products to give. Blago understood this quite well. Businessmen have to provide goods and services that consumers want or they go out of business( unless they get TARP money).

Comment by Steve Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 11:07 am
–The car companies failed due to their credit arms–

That’s the best I’ve heard in a long time.

Comment by Greg Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 11:12 am
Corruption in government is much worse. These are the people who are elected, appointed or hired to do the people’s business. Any corruption at this level is a violation of trust. After all, there is only one government, we can’t go somewhere else, short of a revolution. Which happens in other countries. Politicians corrupt? Revolt. Cuba’s a good example.

Comment by Deep South Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 11:17 am
“Who is more typically more corrupt… politicians or CEO’s of Major companies?”

I hate to be the grammar nut, but WOW what a horribly structured/worded sentence.

Comment by Anon Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 11:17 am
Businesspeople. If you add it up, almost every corrupt politician is tied to at least one (often more than one) businessman who is paying him/her to do something corrupt. The numbers start out even.

To the business side, you get to add all those who are polluting and underpaying and skimming (illegal practices) AND shipping polluting industries overseas, moving profits offshore to avoid taxes, moving jobs to places where labor standards are lax or non-existent (unethical practices).

The businesspeople come out “ahead” here.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 11:25 am
Politicians and CEO’S are human and suffer from the same frailties. Given that fact, I doubt there is much difference between them.

Furthermore, the general public has the same frailities. Therefore, I question the outrage of the public, in general, when it is aimed strictly at politicians!

I do not condone corruption, be it Politicians, CEO’S, or the general public!

Comment by MOON Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 11:28 am
Considering that politicians are responsible for creating and then enforcing the laws that they create; and considering that Illinois pols create laws with endless flexibility; and considering that pols are supposed to be guardians of the public trust (none of those apply to CEOs), I’d say that politicians, especially Illinois politicians are more corrupt.

At least with CEO’s, the people have the choice of not consuming their products.

Politicians force their products upon the people and hide behind lax and laughable elections.

Comment by Pete Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 11:34 am
Politicians because the very arena in which they play is a chronic invitation for corruption.
They need to ask people, well lets face it, big $ organizations for money so they can keep “doing the peoples business”….hogwash. Organizations give money because they believe they can influence things to their favor. They can give to charities if its merely to do good. There is also, by the nature of the system, a greater temptation to do wrong with pols…and sooner or later they give in due to some rationalization or other. Some Pols do stay clean, but I’d say thats under 10% - prove me wrong.

Comment by You Go Boy Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 11:35 am
I bet a higher percentage of CEO’s are more corrupt than the percentage of Illinois pols are. but the number of corrupt politicians may be higher.

Comment by Jake L. Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 11:38 am
What happens when you have municipal corporations as in Springfield? Can you answer “all the above?”

Comment by If It Walks Like a Duck... Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 12:16 pm
My dad always told me that typically the same people who get into business and succeed also succeed in politics. So the percentage of politicians is higher than CEO’s but only because there are only so many political offices in the state and contless CEO’s. In terms of sheer numbers though (including actual amount of money), CEO’s easily take the cake.

Comment by SweetLou Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 12:21 pm
well i would think they would be equally corrupt, as for every corrupt CEO trying to bribe a POLITICIAN, wouldn’t there have to be one of each. I would say EQUALLY corupt. The CEOs have to get things done and the POLIITCIAAANS are spending other people’s money - its a beautiful combination.

Comment by SpfldPolitico Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 12:32 pm
CEO’s. They hide behind board rooms and plan methods to influene politicains. There are many more politians that are no corrupt than CEO’s. Pols have a harder time getting away with it.

Comment by Cynical Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 12:34 pm
Let’s see, corruption in business or corruption in politics. Politicians effect all with taxes, spending and legislating. No recourse but to vote them out after damage is done, with difficulty in reversing what they’ve done.
Business corruption, may effect all, but they, too can be kicked out and effective change can be put forward by next CEO.
Which is the better boat ride, the Lusitania or the Titanic?

Comment by LisleMike Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 12:41 pm
Political leaders are more corrupt — why? Because there’re elected positions. CEOs…you don’t have to do business with them or their country. Elected officials, you have no choice.

Comment by Segatari Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 12:47 pm
Arrgh…company.

Comment by Segatari Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 12:47 pm
If you are liberal, you believe Big Business is evil and Big Government is good. You can thank Karl Marx living through the 1872 World Depression and the adoption of many of Marx’s ideas during the Great Depression for this effect. Unbelievably, Marxism is still being taught at some universities, which considering the era it comes from and it’s impact on the 20th Century, is like teaching medical students that illnesses are caused by Melancholia.

Yet, with every scandal comes fingerpointing from this anti-business crowd.

Answer - Government is more corrupt. Until the 19th Century, most of the world was ran by royal families and citizens were not empowered with freedoms. The liberties we take for granted today are new to this Earth. Governments are corrupt. That fact and the long history proving this fact guided the creation of the US Constitution, Federalism, and the checks and balances written within it. The Bill of Rights, along with the US Constitution establishes the limits of government, not ours. This was by design.

While you can always choose to do business with whomever you wish - allowing once Blue Chip corporations such as GM and US Steel to lose to their competitors, locally or globally, we only get one government. That monopoly of power corrupts, and we see it’s effect on a daily basis.

As long as we are forced to endure the biases, fads, political mischiefs, forced taxations and corrupted hobnobbing with those unscrupulous businesses with political power, government is, and will always be, more corrupt.

While Enron’s Board is either dead or in jail, the massive Enron-like government boondoggles paid for with our dear wages unvoluntarily, continues unabated and growing dangerously larger. Senators Dodd and Congressman Franks are far more corrupt and have done far more damage, than a dozen Jeffrey Skillings.

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 12:48 pm
Origin of corrupt: 1250–1300; ME (

Comment by Das Man Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 12:56 pm
VMan, thanks for clearing all that up.

Where, too, can I get a subscription to “Sean Hannity Comics Presents: The History of the World?”

Illustrated only in black and white, no shades of grey, of course.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 1:07 pm
Origin of corrupt: 1250–1300; ME corruptus broken in pieces. Sounds closer to the General Assembly. If the question were Wall Street Bankers & CEO’s, I might vote differently.
I think the way the question was asked in the poll promotes vituperation against both - which may be what the 24% “not Sure” represents.

Comment by Das Man Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 1:09 pm
Having working near the power centers in both spheres, I can say, without a doubt — equally corrupt. However, the corruption of politicians is more obvious - open meetings act, freedom of information act, press coverage. Most reporters couldn’t follow what’s going on in the business world to save their lives and without access to the inside information, it remains uncovered.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 1:25 pm
Wow. I have no real idea, but would guess that many politicians have some sense of the trust we’d like to place in them so maybe they’re a little better. A lot of times it seems like incompetence or dysfunction (e.g., not understanding proper roles and processes, etc.) has inflicted at least as much damage as corruption.

Answering Carl: I evaluate acts for corruption based firstly on whose interests were served vs. whose interests were SUPPOSED to be served. A second criterion related to the first is whether there’s an end-justifies-the-means rationale involved–that’s where 47th Ward’s shortcuts come in, I believe.

No matter what kind or organization, there’s a culture involved and a lot comes down from the top. You’ve got roughly 20% of people who will almost always act with integrity and another 20% who will tend to choose the wrong shortcut. It leaves a lot of people somewhere in the middle and knowing what to do with the middles is what leadership is all about.

Comment by yinn Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 1:35 pm
I would refine the question to be who has a higher percentage share of corrupt individuals.
Without question the politicians win.

The standard blue position is that corporation who do all the damage, but which corporation in Illinois has created an insurmountable pension deficit in Illinois? (I can give national examples, but this is supposed to be an Illinois blog..)

We can look at today’s headlines about our dear US Senator who had a meeting with financial regulators and immediately ran to change his investment strategy before that information was made widely available.

CEOs are regulated by numerous bodies as well as the shareholders of the corporations they work for. The vast majority are hard working individuals who do their best. Is there corruption, yes, but the pols win hands down.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 1:35 pm
Where, too, can I get a subscription to “Sean Hannity Comics Presents: The History of the World?”

I am not a big Sean Hannity fan, and I certainly wouldn’t buy anything in a comic book format, but if such a publication did exist, it would probably be located in the same comic book stores you bought sadly very real comic book.

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 1:41 pm
try this link instead

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 1:44 pm
I would say it has to be 50/50. And I am also going to take it a step further and say not only corruption, but arrogance and a complete inability to understand that not everyone lives in the same world as they both do.
Given the complete surprise the CEO’s, from companies bailed out in the recent financial meltdown, showed when they were brought up short for using private corporate jets, for paying exorbitant bonuses with taxpayer money, and for all the other extravagancies they continued to enjoy as they were asking for taxpayer dollars; I would say that the CEO’s do not see anything wrong with their actions. Compare that to the complete disregard the GA, and the leaders are showing towards the financial meltdown the State is facing, and I would say both politicians and CEO’s apparently have no idea what constitutes reality. It is this arrogance and tunnel vision as they pursue their personal agendas that leads them first to be out of touch with the common folk, and second to take that next step into corruption.
If they cannot see the harm in shutting down social services or even threatening to shut them down, and by doing so put a lot of people through unecessary worry and hardship, just to get what they want personally; then they also don’t see the harm in getting a favor for a favor and then the downward spiral begins. And that is just like one of those rides at the water park. Once you get in the bowl and start going down around and around you can’t stop and get off.
I guess it is an erosion of the concience that can occur if one is not careful when one ascends to a position of power.

Comment by Irish Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 2:01 pm
This question is akin to something like: “Who commits the most sins per day, the average Catholic or the average Lutheran?” And many people would answer, “that’s above my pay grade”, as well they should.

I don’t pretend to have the answer to this one either, and I agree that there are likely more legal and “public perception” snares for politicians to get caught in than corporate CEO’s, if they are corrupt. Just as public employees are more heavily scrutinized than private sector employees. There’s good and bad apples in every bunch.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 2:09 pm
Six -

Maybe someone should introduce a bill applying the Freedom of Information Act to publicly traded companies and publicly-chartered corporations?

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 2:18 pm
VM wrote: ==While you can always choose to do business with whomever you wish…we only get one government.==

The opposite seems more true to me. As mega corporations have grown, our options to choose with whom we do business have become more limited. On the other hand, we change our government frequently and dramatically. At the federal level, just look at the swings in the Presidency since WWII or in the Congress since Reagan. In Illinois, it has been less dramatic in the House, but the Senate and especially the Governor’s office have changed dramatically.

Plus, we discover the corrupt pols pretty quickly and toss them out. With corporations, the same small group of people can run a company for years with little threat of overthrow as long as they return a healthy profit. Walmart, for example, has had a huge impact on the nation’s manufacturing sector and on trade policy, and the same family has always been in charge. Whether or not they are legally or morally corrupt, we get no opportunity to toss them out.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 2:36 pm
I think corporate sin is more constrained - in that there is a bottom line, and owners/shareholders to whom one must be beholden.

It may at one time have that politicians were constrained by the voters (or not), but they certainly don’t seem to be today.

Comment by doc Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 2:41 pm
Rich: Isn’t this kind of like asking, “Which would you rather have, bubonic plague or cancer?”

Comment by One of the 35 Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 2:59 pm
To be succinct: I trust the politicians I know much more than the corporate titans I know. Disclaimer: most of the politicians I know are local government officials, not statewide players.

Comment by Jake from Elwood Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 3:02 pm
Plus, we discover the corrupt pols pretty quickly and toss them out.

Being a resident of IL, I spit my drink onto the screen when I read this.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 3:18 pm
The issue shouldn’t be who is more corrupt…It should be why do we have so many corrupt Politicians and CEO’s. It just sickens me to believe that we are accepting the fact that is commonplace. The Leaders of our Country! the Leaders of Commerce!

How do we explain this to our kids: You must be honest, trust-worthy, moral … unless you become a politician or lean a major corporation, then you can lie, cheat and steal as much as you can…

When did our leaders decide to cheat everyone else?

Comment by Rufus Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 3:46 pm
Collectively, I think buisnessmean and poliricans are equally venal and corrupt. The diparity in what CEOs make and what rank and file employees make has become too great during the last 30 - 40 years to reach any other conclusion. But maybe, Im confusing coruption and greed.
Of course, there are good CEOs and bad CEOs, jut as there are good and bad politicos.

In terms of Illinois political corruption, it takes two to tango, but most of the business cvounterparties would not qulify as a “major” CEO.

Comment by Captain America Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 4:03 pm
Pot calling the kettle,

VM is on point here. Historically, large corporations tend to become over-large and unwieldy which put them at a disadvantage to smaller, more nimble, companies seeking to make profits in the nooks and crannies of a particular market. We vilified the “robber barons” of the 19th century accusing them of hogging the transportation market with their train monopolies. Within a generation they had diminished greatly, partly due to gov’t intrusion but also, in large part, because roadways and trucks/cars made inroads into their market. Monopolies/business empires clear out the competition on a macro scale but are vulnerable to the smaller creatures feeding on the fringes.

No such market forces exist on the scale of a gov’t body the size of Illinois or the U.S. They have a monopoly by virtue of the fact that there is no other game in town. You can’t just decide not to buy from that gov’t and go to another. You can’t simply ignore that governing body. They have taxing and policing powers that preclude that.

Having said that I can say that I have witnessed waste in businesses as I have in non-profit agencies as well as the gov’t since I have worked in all 3 spheres. I may not be qualified to say which one is worse than the others but the gov’t has more access to the other 2 than they have w/the gov’t. Business must have gov’t - but gov’t doesn’t need business. In fact, we know some historical examples of business and gov’t being one and the same and the corruption/incompetence was homeric. It also failed miserably. But you won’t hear the Marxist professors of economics admit to that. They are the living dead of the academic world - just can’t get rid of them.

Gov’ts will always be more corrupt cause you can’t bankrupt them or buy from someone else.

Comment by DuPage Dan Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 4:36 pm
I won’t classify either one as intrinsically corrupt. We’re all sinners, daddio.

But for all you True Believers out there in the laissez-faire marketplace: hide the bong, Rep. Kirk is at the door.

Some short points:

1. We wouldn’t be in this mess if the SEC had done it’s job. It was created for a reason. FDR put Old Joe Kennedy as it’s first chief (”Set a thief to catch a thief).

2. You can’t give subprime-loans a AAA rating, wrap them up as securities, and use them as collateral to make more loans at a 50-1 ratio in the general economy.

There’s no sin in wanting to own a home. It’s the American Way. It drives the economy, if you want to trace modern Conservatism to Dame Thatcher, homeownership was the key. Same with the New Way of Bill Clinton.

Those loans weren’t given out of the goodness of anyone’s heart. The idea was to collect the Big Juice, and if that didn’t work, foreclose, toss them out and flip in a housing market that would never come down.

Didn’t turn out that way.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 6:35 pm
has to be the pols, no? as distasteful and shameful as some of the actions of CEOs has been, they’re sadly working within the law. they were able to get the pols to write the laws making most of what they do legal

Comment by ethanol35 Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 10:40 pm
Co-dependent enablers.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 16, 09 @ 9:05 pm