The Corruption Curve: Study of All 50 States Show No Curve Breakers When It Comes To Transparency and Honesty

A study by the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity and Public Radio International paints a rather dim picture of the state of transparency and honesty among the several states. Eight state governments received a failing F grade while no state received an A. Thus, in this class, getting a B tops you in the top ten percent of the class.

The eight states at the bottom of the class are Michigan, North Dakota, South Carolina, Maine, Virginia, Wyoming, South Dakota and Georgia.

The “over-achievers” in the B range include New Jersey, Connecticut, Washington, California and Nebraska. Some 19 states received Cs and 18 earned Ds.

Many might find the top performing state student something of a surprise: New Jersey with a B+.

Here is the study: State Survey

Source: Politico

15 thoughts on “The Corruption Curve: Study of All 50 States Show No Curve Breakers When It Comes To Transparency and Honesty”

  1. I was pleasantly surprised that my state of Illinois got a C! Wow. If Blago was still living in the State, the grade would have been at least a D!

  2. no state government received an ‘A’. I am quite confident that no government of any sort at any time could fairly receive an ‘a’ in transparency, honesty, and integrity

  3. OT:

    Sy Hersh on the My Lai Massacre Anniversary

    Friday March 16th marked the 44th anniversary of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, when U.S. troops killed hundreds of civilians. Journalist Sy Hersh won the Pulitzer for exposing the massacre and the subsequent Pentagon cover-up. This segment features Hersh from 2008, the 40th anniversary of the massacre.

    Watch: 1968, Forty Years Later: My Lai Massacre Remembered by Survivors, Victims’ Families and US War Vets

  4. Seeing that Illinois recieved a “C” blew my mind. I just assumed we’d be one of the “F” states.

  5. Maine????? North Dakota?????
    the last line of that article is the most telling.

    And you can put all the ‘ethics’ panels you want in to the mix…the crimate today still does not allow them to act at purpose.

    This ‘study’ , if it is about the current state integrity, vs, the possibility of FUTURE integrity, appears to have a fatal flaw….it is using criteria to grade these places on the simple presence of the committee…a better set of criteria would be to counterweight with the complaints and issues that created the need for those panels in the frst place. Otherwise the title is mislabeled and misleading.

    Definition of INTEGRITY according to Merriam Webster;

    1: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility

    2: an unimpaired condition : soundness

    3: the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness

    note the words ‘adherence’ and ‘unimpaired’

  6. A well oiled machine needs its “Gifts, Grafts and Gratitudies”…..

  7. Mike S.
    Some thirty years ago the President of Indonesia came out on front page headlines in Jakarta that “commissions” were fully OK.
    There it was open for all to see, no hypocrisy there.

    Being a North Carolinian, I am glad to note SC and VA positions.

    And will add that we’ve always said:
    “We are a valley of humility between two mountains of conceit.”

  8. While after reading this report I’m not quite sure that it makes an adequate case, I don’t doubt the thrust of its overall conclusions. I’ve long contended that State and local governments are far easier to corrupt than government on a national level. However, that is not an endorsement of the federal government and its three branches being pristine, because corruption too is rampant on the federal level. It just takes more money to corrupt nationally. In our way American government is as corrupt as any nation where bribery is the standard used for obtaining services, we’re just more hypocritical about it.

  9. Having lived in Georgia, I’m not surprised at its poor showing. One hypothesis I’ve had about Virginia’s one-term governor rule is that it implicitly disfavors any kind of real reform–governors tend toward the “safe”.

Comments are closed.