At last week’s press conference to announce the influence peddling and corruption charges against IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), FBI Special Agent Robert Grant said that if IL “isn't the most corrupt state in the United States, it's certainly one hell of a competitor." That's all it took to start a new political parlor game amongst the punditocracy: Which is the most corrupt state in the Union?

The Washington Post’s Ben Pershing and Paul Kane lay out the case for IL (four governors before Blagojevich charged with criminal conduct in the last 50 years; 79 current or former elected officials found guilty of a crime since 1972); LA (Rep. William Jefferson and his ATM disguised as a freezer, former Gov. Edwin Edwards (D) “convicted on 17 counts [and] served three years in prison”); and NJ (former Sen. Robert Torricelli (D) who was "severely admonished" by the Senate ethics committee , and former Gov. James McGreevey (D), who appointed his gay lover to a homeland security post after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks) – then asked readers to vote in an online poll. Of the 1,520 votes cast, IL took top dishonors (47 percent), followed by LA (32 percent) and NJ (12 percent). 

There are several ways to gauge levels of government corruption, all of them a bit, well, corrupt. We present three methods here in the interest of keeping the arguments going.

In a Department of Justice tally covering the last decade, Florida wins by its sheer number of guilty. …

Illinois ranks only seventh, with 502 convictions. …

[T]he bigger the state, generally, the more officials it has, criminal or otherwise. So places like Florida [824] , New York [704] and Texas [565] pile up big numbers. …

A better measure, perhaps, showing how many convicted officials … for every one million constituents. Seems fair - unless you're North Dakota.

The District of Columbia wins big [66.9], for obvious reasons: its high concentration of public officials amid a relatively small population.

No accounting of government corruption The Stiletto came across is as thorough and exhaustive (but arguably too expansive, as it includes people who were involved in political scandals but not elected to any office) as this Wikipedia list of federal (executive, legislative and judicial branches), state, local and personal scandals dating back to the founding of the nation. A rough count of Dems and Repubs elected to national, state and local offices finds that over the last eight years Dems were quantitatively more corrupt than Repubs (41 to 37) but Repubs were qualitatively more corrupt, as they tended to hold high-profile national positions in the executive and legislative branches; Dem corruption was at local and lower levels of government. That’s why – until now - Repub scandals seemed to get far more play in the national media than Dem scandals.

No one has clean hands in politics, pollster and political analyst Douglas Schoen writes in Forbes:

[W]hile what Blagojevich did is undeniably beyond the pale, it is frankly much more common in the political world than anyone has been willing to acknowledge. …

[W]iretaps reveal clear and unambiguous evidence that Blagojevich hoped to get something in exchange for the appointment. But this kind of horse trading, in my experience, goes on all the time. It usually isn't articulated as bluntly as it apparently was here, though - and there usually aren't as many wiretaps marshaled as evidence.

At every level of politics from municipal office on up, politicians engage in the kind of thinking--and indeed talking, speculating or ruminating--that Blagojevich is reported to have done.

Politicians do not hand out jobs or favors without some reasonable expectation that they will get something in return. Contributors do not give large gifts to politicians, especially those who they have limited personal relationships with, without some reasonable expectation that their undertakings will be, at the very least, taken into account when policy decisions and appointments are made. ...

That said, this is a sorry chapter in American political history, one that reflects badly on a state and a political culture that has rightly been regarded as one of the most corrupt in America--but it is one that is certainly not unique.

But Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks warns:  

Blagojevich's downfall should be a cautionary tale for Democrats still basking in the reflected glory of Obama's win. It's a reminder that even at this magic moment of victory and party unity … powerful Democrats aren't immune to human weaknesses.

Idiocy and greed aren't just for Republicans. For every Larry Craig, there's an Eliot Spitzer; for every Ted Stevens, there's a Rod Blagojevich.

In our heads, we Democrats know that. It's just that in our hearts, we don't want to believe it. Because we're the good guys, right? The ones who honed our progressive values during years in the political wilderness and who finally saw those values vindicated in November's electoral victories.

But it's precisely when a party achieves power that its members need to start worrying the most about idiocy and greed. When you're in the opposition, you're already down and out, so what difference does it make if your side's idiocy leaves you - temporarily - a little bit more down and out? And being in the opposition offers fewer patronage opportunities.

But power really does corrupt.

An axiom to keep in mind, as the nation reflects on the 10^th anniversary of Bill Clinton’s impeachment this week (December 19, 1998). With the shoe on the other foot now, scandal-plagued Dems may yet see the Repubs rise again in 2010.
  

Editorial Note: A Rasmussen telephone survey of 500 IL voters found that only 32 percent of respondents say that it is “not at all likely” that Barack Obama was involved in the Blagojevich corruption case; even black voters were split on Obama’s involvement 50-50. Indeed, the residents of IL are so inured to corruption they don’t expect any better from their elected officials, reports The New York Times:  

As much as politicians in Illinois have had a tradition of corruption, the people of Illinois have had a tradition of accepting it, even expecting it …

“There is this attitude among politicians, and frankly among citizens, that this is the way things are,” said Kent Redfield, a professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “Politics is for professionals.”

The surprise for many Illinoisans last week was not that their governor was arrested, but that he could be brazen enough to try to sell a Senate seat when he was already under federal investigation. …

Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said, “It’s as if we have a good angel on one shoulder and a bad angel on the other.” 

Bambu: We’re Being Rolled

Bambu Sales, which markets a variety of rolling papers, accessories and clothing, filed a  federal trademark-infringement lawsuit against Love Fatigues for creating and selling a line of T-shirts that spell out “Obama” using the firm’s distinctive font; some of the T-shirts also feature Bambu’s Panama-hat-wearing smoker but with Obama's face, reports The Associated Press.

Love Fatigues is "capitalizing on and profiting from Bambu's stellar reputation," the Westbury-based company complained.

But Love Fatigues owner and Obama supporter Seamus McGovern said the design is an artistic twist on a familiar symbol - not commercial copycatting. …

He said the Obama shirts were inspired by the Bambu lettering - not by the Democrat's on-and-off cigarette smoking habit, which he has said he has tried to quit. 

Yeah, right. The T-shirts were inspired by Barack Hussein Obama’s^* cigarette smoking, and not by this passage from his autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” where he admitted high school drug and alcohol use: “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though.” Or by Jay Leno asking him, “Did you inhale?” and Obama answering, “That was the point.”

Bambu is seeking all profits from the T-shirts, plus damages and all remaining inventory to be destroyed.

^* It’s OK to use his middle name now; The New York Times says so.

The Stiletto Scoops The Washington Post

IL Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich (D) has threatened that the state will stop doing business with Bank of America until it restores credit to Republic Windows and Doors so that the company can meet its obligations to its employees. … Of course, having been arrested on corruption charges for allegedly trying to sell Barack Obama’s vacated U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, Blagojevich is in no position to make good on his threat against Bank of America - although it is very much in keeping with his M.O.
- “Factory Workers: Hell, No, We Won’t Go!,” The Stiletto Blog, December 10, 2008

Blagojevich informed [Bank of America ] officials that unless they restored the shuttered window-and-door company's line of credit, the state of Illinois would suspend all further business with Bank of America. … The idea that the governor of a state as prosperous and important and sophisticated and upscale as Illinois would make this kind of threat is terrifying. … [P]eddling a Senate seat or using scare tactics to shake down a newspaper are nowhere near so serious a menace to society as letting the government arbitrarily intervene in financial transactions between banks and creditors.

- “Pay to Play? This Racket Is Worse,” The Washington Post, December 14, 2008