Thread: The 10 most corrupt states in the U.S.

The 10 most corrupt states in the U.S.

• by
• Chris Matthews

• @crobmatthews

JUNE 10, 2014, 1:55 PM EDT

New research takes a look at decades of corruption convictions to find the crookedest states in the union.


When we think of government corruption (as one tends to do), our biased minds often gravitate to thoughts of military juntas and third world governments. But, of course, corruption is everywhere, in one form or another. And it’s costing U.S. citizens big time.

A new study from researchers at the University of Hong Kong and Indiana University estimates that corruption on the state level is costing Americans in the 10 most corrupt states an average of $1,308 per year, or 5.2% of those states’ average expenditures per year.

The researchers studied more than 25,000 convictions of public officials for violation of federal corruption laws between 1976 and 2008 as well as patterns in state spending to develop a corruption index that estimates the most and least corrupt states in the union. Based on this method, the the most corrupt states are:
1. Mississippi
2. Louisiana
3. Tennessee
4. Illinois
5. Pennsylvania
6. Alabama
7. Alaska
8. South Dakota
9. Kentucky
10. Florida

That these places landed on the list isn’t exactly surprising. Illinois, which has gain notoriety for its high-profile corruption cases in recent years, is paired with states like Mississippi and Louisiana, which are some of the least economically developed in the country. The researchers also found that for 9 out of the 10 of the most corrupt states, overall state spending was higher than in less corrupt states (South Dakota was the only exception). Attacking corruption, the researchers argue, could be a good way to bring down state spending without hurting services that people need.

Researchers also found that spending in these states was different than their less corrupt counterparts. According to the report, “states with higher levels of corruption are likely to favor construction, salaries, borrowing, correction, and police protection at the expense of social sectors such as education, health and hospitals.”

The paper explains that construction spending, especially on big infrastructure projects, is particularly susceptible to corruption because the quality of large, nonstandard projects are difficult for the public to gauge, while the industry is dominated by a few monopolistic firms. Corrupt states also tend to, for obvious reasons, simply have more and better paid public servants, including police and correctional officers. The researchers argue that the need for correctional officers is greater in corrupt places too because “the overall extent of corruption will be higher in states with higher numbers of convictions of public officials.”

Of course, it’s not all bad news, as the study also found the least corrupt states too. Citizens of these states–Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Vermont, Utah, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Kansas–can take solace in the fact that they’re not getting ripped off as badly as the rest of us.

http://fortune.com/2014/06/10/most-c...a/?xid=tab_rss

Just a bit of a BS article and report. Some states are so heavily controlled by one political side who has each others backs there is no way to prosecute corrupt politicians especially if those in power and in the courts are of the same political philosphy. Cali and NY are about as corrupt as you can get for states, yet neither are on the list. Look at the corruption in Chicago and Detroit that is world renowned and those 2 cities should have been enough for their states to top the list with Cali and NY counted.

Problem is they only count the convicted while tons and tons go uncharged every year who are 100x worse usually.

Do you have a link to any data supporting those claims?

Or did you just make up those "facts".

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Do you have a link to any data supporting those claims?

Or did you just make up those "facts".

The fact that this was written by Chris Matthews, yes The Chris Matthews is enough to cause anyone to doubt its'validity. As we know, Mr Matthews is a dyed in the wool, screaming Progressive that hates the South.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Do you have a link to any data supporting those claims?

Or did you just make up those "facts".

What kind of data do you expect? Lets think on this a second? We recently have had a major turnout in the last few years from Detroit, how many of the liberal cronies who had strong ties and profit gains were also charged and convicted? What it comes down to is liberals will NOT charge and prosecute their own when their hand is caught in the cookie jar. We see this every day nationally covered my small media where mainstream media (almost fully liberal controlled) won't even mention it on page 12. Unless one is caught doing an non corruption crime such as sex with a minor, prostitution scandal, or murder it doesn't matter to them.

The proof is the lack of charges and convictions. Look all around and you see cases everywhere yet who is charged? IF it comes to it the liberal steps down and everything is swept under the rug. Again you see this constantly. Yet if its Rep or even a GOP boi the dems make sure their are criminal charges that are followed through on using their strong arms such as the dozens of *rights* groups. How often does the ACLU or NAACP come out when a Dem is caught using women poorly or treating blacks badly?

Then also like NewMexican said, look at the writer and what side they are very well known to represent. Mathews will NOT EVER do an article that makes Liberals look bad.

The question wasn't about Cris Mattews.
The question was:

Do you have a link to any data supporting those claims?

Or did you just make up those "facts".