Legislative Corruption Quotes
This is a very important historical and political quotation. The first clause shows us that earmarks and private bills for the benefit of individuals and their commercial enterprises are not a new form of corruption; they have existed ever since there have been legislatures.
The most important aspect of this quotation is the SECOND clause. Very frequently, this is quoted alone without the context of the first clause. Taken alone, the meaning seems to be that the more corrupt governments pass the most laws, and there is an implication that fewer laws mean less corruption. This interpretation fits perfectly with the conservative ideology of the late 20th and early 21st centuries that believed that the smaller the government, the better; the fewer the laws passed, the better. However with the context of the first clause, we see that what Tacitus was criticizing the legislature that passed many earmarks and bills benefitting special interests. The more of these that were passed, the more corruption he argued. So he did not object to laws per se. He was not opining on the relationship between the number of laws and a corrupt government if the laws are for general benefit and not for special interests. Out of context, it might appear that Tacitus was supporting the small government, conservative philosophy. In context, he is arguing against earmarks and special interest legislation and supports what we call “good government” which has been bipartisan in America with parts of each party agreeing with Tacitus and other parts of each party trying to pass earmarks and special interest legislation.
In the beginning of the 21st century some lobbyists were so powerful that they were actually in Congressional committee markups and other closed meetings and writing or helping to write actual legislation. In prior years lobbyists would send notes or make suggestions as to wording, but were not part of the group of Congressmen actually doing the drafting. The Republican majority took this practice so far that they had lobbyists in the committee rooms drafting legislation and refused to allow the minority party members in the meeting. So lobbyists got to draft legislation favorable to the organizations that paid them while elected congressmen were not allowed to participate or even observe who was in the room and what they were doing. Lobbying scandals in 2005 and 2006 began to curtail some of these most egregious practices. Democrats, when they were in the majority sometimes surreptitiously would accept written “language” suggested for laws and then would use the “suggestions” in their draft of the legislation. So the effect and the lack of ethics was often the same but the method more subtle. These unethical practices go back even to Daniel Webster who was regularly paid a monthly bribe to care for the interests of the railroads and he introduced legislation sought by the industry and company that was paying him. At least that overt a practice has been outlawed, but so many others remain.
In the early 1920's the New York City Board of Alderman was totally dominated by Irish-Americans. One advised a non-Irish colleague:
California legislators do not have the kind of individual powers and discretion that other legislatures such as New York have. The result is that lobbyist and powerful special interests cannot assure a benefit if they invest in a legislator in California and the temptations in California are therefore less leading to less corruption.
James D. McCabe
Note the difference in standards that existed at the beginning of the 20th century. The Wall Street Journal was offended because corporations had paid agents in labor unions, legislatures and political parties. A century later it was common for corporations to have many lobbyists (overt and covert) in legislatures,. They had key representatives in political parties and gave the parties huge fiscal and service contributions and not only had their paid agents in labor unions but often sometimes paid the officers of the unions. The morality of 1904 seems almost quaint.
In 1987 Toshiba Corporation of Japan illegally sold sophisticated technical equipment to the Russians. Congress was considering legislation that would punish Toshiba, but the proposed sanctions were softened:
