Listened to a stuff you should know ep about carbon trading. Despite the fact that america opted out of legislating carbon emissions, some businesses voluntarilly enter into legally binding agreements to cap polution. Could there be a political corruption variation on this. Even though congress won't police its own private interest influence, candidates could form a group that punishes them for violating anti coruption rules that they voluntarilly agree to.

If this deal was legit and had teeth and produced results for those of that look at situations and think, " that guy should be punished for that" would it not become a group that gained enough credibility that those who do not voluntarilly address their susceptibilty to private would suffer in elections. I think americans are gettin close to seeing as voters that private interest influence is corruption, whether congress wants to say it is or not.

Each house of Congress has a body that serves this job called the "Ethics" committee. The punishments handed out are largely voluntary as there's no ability to enforce it's judgments. If Charles Rangel chose not to pay the fines he received last year he really couldn't be compelled to pay up. The censure was nothing but a bad joke.

The problem here is that since Congress actually writes the rules it can change, or ignore, them almost at whim. When the size and scope of the Federal government was limited the amount of corruption possible was similarly limited. The sayings "Power corrupts" and "The love of money of the root of all evil" have never been more true.