Corruption
There are certain themes that dredge up lots of memories and sentiments. The sad state of affairs in life in general is that the word corruption is one such theme. Corruption is most often used to describe fraudulent or dishonest conduct and is most often associated with that act being undertaken by someone in a powerful or otherwise trusted position. I have always considered myself a trusting person. I like to think that I give everyone the benefit of the doubt or start off by assuming the best of most people. I understand that many people think it is naive to be trusting and that the wiser course is to assume the worst and then be pleasantly surprised on the upside. But that is an outlook on life I prefer not to take as a matter of principle. I feel that being an optimistic or positive person is simply a better way to live and is more pleasant to be around. No one likes negativism or flinty-eyed circumspection. While there may be people who come out of the womb with this natural skeptical outlook, my guess is that it is most often learned behavior. Bad experiences pile on people’s psyches and sour their opinion of others. It is probably safe to suggest that some people think other people are mostly bad intentioned, while others believe in the inherent goodness of man. Even if you have a mostly positive outlook, there are moments when the constant drip, drip, drip of corrupt acts from otherwise trusted people are enough to make you question the appropriateness of your optimism.
I have often been accused of giving people too much credit, being too trusting and thinking I can “turn dross into gold” when it comes to people. I think I am the recipient of their criticism because people find it unlikely that someone in a banker’s or fiduciary’s role should be so trusting. I’ve never given a priori weight to being other than trusting, but I have noted a personal tendency to get quite upset, angry and/or vengeful when my trust is breached. There is something that feels particularly bad to me to freely give my presumption of trust and then to have that trust abused.
As a teacher of Law, Policy and Ethics, I have had to contemplate the boundaries between legality, policy wisdom and ethical behavior and where those boundaries overlap or are breached. Good faith and fair dealing are the foundation of fiduciary behavior. The nature of the fiduciary relationship implies that one party, who is the fiduciary, is in a position of trust and power over certain affairs and that there is a beneficiary who is relying on that fiduciary to protect their interests. Contract law gives parties the ability to clarify and define the limits and requirements of that fiduciary obligation between the fiduciary and the beneficiary. But underlying contract law is a broad sense of obligation that parties have to deal fairly with each other and not abuse the good faith that is entrusted in them by the nature of their position.
I know this sounds like legal brief, but it is an important concept in ethics that just because there isn’t explicitly stated obligations that a controlling party has over his beneficiaries does not mean that there is absolution of the more general obligations of honesty and fairness. Fraud is a strong word, but the force of self-interest is such a prevalent and pernicious presence in the world that it is often invoked to describe behavior that conflicts the actions of a fiduciary with the interests of the beneficiary. As Willie Nelson has said and almost every country legend has repeated, no one is happy when “You done me wrong.”
These days I am finding it hard to avoid thinking about corruption. As a teacher of ethics, I have to use case studies or examples of behavior that display the borderline nature of right and wrong and how and why there are situations that one person can consider fair and reasonable and the other party can consider harmful and unjust. Peeling the evidentiary onion to expose the actions and the obligations is a delicate exercise, but one which can inform and guide a decision of what is and isn’t on which side of the line (remembering that there are multiple lines for legality, policy wisdom and the ethical behavior). One of the best sources I have for true-to-life cases come from my expert witness work. The names and identities of the parties don’t really matter (and need to be kept confidential anyway), but a review of roles and obligations followed by a recitation of actions taken and harm inflicted can tell a compelling and instructive story. Who did what. Who was supposed to do what. Who was supposed NOT to do what. Who was harmed by the actions. And was the harm intentional or inadvertent. The notion of collateral damage can also come into play because wrongful acts can create broader or ripple-effect outcomes that harm others completely by accident.
The business world is rife with these sorts of situations. The nature of liability and the intricacies of taxation give rise to structures, like traditional limited liability structures (companies and trusts) that establish specific fiduciary and beneficiary roles. The same is true in general partnerships, where one person has more control than another and is therefore beholding to the other to perform duties in an open and trustworthy manner without prejudice to their own interests. I am asked all the time to opine on these sorts of situations and to bring to bear my almost fifty years of experience and judgement (not to mention my role as a senior fiduciary at several major institutions). My opening standard is usually one having to do with communications. I believe almost everything in life is governed by communications. The more of it there is and the more open it is, the less corruption there tends to be. This is not the only palliative and may not even provide sufficient relief if the transgression is egregious enough, but it sure reduces the likelihood of ill intent. Blatant transgression is easier to define, but harder to nail down intent. Surreptitious activity is harder to find, but once uncovered is much easier to identify as ill-intentioned by the very act of hiding it.
Corruption in politics is squarely on the table every day these days. I know that historically, corruption is an unfortunate mainstay of governance systems. From the earliest tribal chief, there are people who defraud and people who have been victimized. Kleptocracy (a monetary form of corruption) is as old as any king. Some rulers rule for the good of their people and yet many rule out of pure greed and their attempt to surmount the rule of law.
I saw today that the U.S. Attorneys office has announced a federal investigation of Senator Robert Menendez, Democratic Senator from New Jersey. This is noteworthy to me at a time when Democrats are in control of the Executive Branch and when Republicans (including our favorite Republican, Donald Trump) are being subpoenaed, indicted and convicted left and right. The only hope of minimizing corruption is to use a level playing field to judge all fiduciaries in the same impartial manner, whatever their party affiliations. While the Biden Department of Justice is investigating Menendez and thereby potentially impacting the delicate balance we have at the moment in the Senate, that stands behind the support for the rule of law. If Menendez is deemed to be corrupt, then out he goes. That says to me that the Biden Administration is NOT corrupt and stands for right over wrong. Can the Republicans claim the same?