B. Politicians don't share power with "little people", so Politician A doesn't exist.

hehe nice one.

Depends what you mean by more corrupt.
Is it the option that have more probability of succeding
then the more corrupt one is the option you see more beneficial for you.

Should not there be a third option for the UK, bearing in mind the current greed of certain government politicians?

Politician C says: Give me money, I don't have any power at all but if you give me money* I know someone who will give you some power.

* and a cowboy suit.

Dave,

Politicians suck up to big people all the time. Which is currently in the news in the UK. Which is why I wrote about it. I'm inclined to think that the slave-auction of other citizens to voters (and often by misdirection, to themselves) that makes up the what most people regard as the legitimate business of democratic politics, is much more pernicious than any sale of honours that may or may not happen. The latter if it occurs is a trivial wrong. The former is steadily destroying the free institutions of liberal society.

B. At least the first one is being honest.

For me, the main difference is in the openness with which the offer is made.

For B, in effect the buying of votes by delayed promise of money, is usually done in western democracies through some form of advert. A promise is made to voters, through the media, to 'favour' one group of them with expenditure. A crucial element of this type of bribery is that it requires that sufficient numbers of voters are influenced by the thought of 'free money' that they change their voting preference. This neccesitates that the bribe is widely known and subsequently all rational voters are aware of it and may therefore react, positively or negatively, to the offer being made.

For A, the number of people who supply money and are then actually given influence, is usually small. This allows the deals to be made without the knowledge of most voters. Removing this factor from the set of information on which voters may base their choices.

It is for this opaqueness that I think A is more corrupt in practice.

Congratulations Guy; it is a very good riddle.

Here's my take, after a couple of hours thought on it.

Politician B says: Give me power. If I get power, I'll take other people's money and give some of it to you.

Politician B is every politician we ever see nowerdays. It's wealth redistribution through any tax that is not a poll tax, worse through any tax that is not a flat-rate tax, and even worse the higher the escalation with income.

Nevertheless, we are not ever going to move from the overall principle that the amount of tax paid by anyone must be more according to income than to existence. Thus it is a matter of degree.

Also see below.

Politician A says: Give me money. If I get power, I'll let you have some of my power.

There is no political system that is entirely free of patronage. However, in the UK, we know that government ministers must be drawn from Parliament. Therefore, at least in the Commons, the electorate must be viewed as having decided that MPs are not undeserving of holding ministerial power. The Lords is a different matter, sadly; though something might be done about it soon. In the USA, their method of scrutiny by Congress is their protection: again imperfect, but better than nothing.

Back to the riddle.

I don't know if there is a sinmgle best answer. However, I think a large part of it is transparency. If the deal is plainly open and in the public domain, it's tolerable (and so foul can be shouted from all the rooftops). If it's a secret deal, its not, or is barely, tolerable.

That seems to me, at least to a large extent, to answer the honours for cash scandal.

Best regards

And another big riddle in my life is the algorithms underlying Samizdata Smite Control.

For those of us with static IP addresses, is there currently any consideration of track record, or any chance thereof? Just as a sight consideration, you know; not carte blanche.

Best regards

I suppose neither are 'corrupt' by their standards as your questions merely illustrate the basic underlying nature of the political process.

Can we not just say 'a pox on all their houses' and be done with it ?

Politics is an inherently dishonest process. It is either corrupt as in the two examples cited, or it is dishonest in that it misrepresents the views of opponents (largely in terms of either A or B depending on the target audience)

my comment shgould have concluded with:

... in order to gain advantage - also in terms of A or B.

Actually, A and B are the same person, just talking to different audiences: wealthy persons/corporations/interests, and ordinary folk. ("The People," the populist appeal.) The ordinary folk appeal frequently works, and it explains why incumbents usually win.

"I can bring home the bacon!
Fry it up in a pan!
And never never never let you forget
I'm your man!
'Cuz I'm in Congress, vote for me!"
(You know the song.)

In my state, the fifth district congressman is well established, has seniority, and is on great committees like APPROPRIATIONS! Hal Rogers brings home the bacon.

Ditto for one of our Senators, Mitch McConnell. His appearances on the point-counterpoint news talk TV and radio shows are constant exposure to reinforce his name recognition and dominance. He's hardcore Republican, but trades on his wife's position as the Secretary of Labor to appeal to the working man.

The other Senator, during the last campaign, made such bizarre statements that everyone was suspecting he had Alzheimer's, dementia, or a mental health problem. However, well established incumbent, got re-elected anyway.

Sunshine on pork and K street is the answer. Porkbusters is gaining steam. I read it on Instapundit.

Easy - the politician ... or am I missing something?

Congratulations Guy; it is a very good riddle. ...

Ah hah! Finally Smite Control has allowed my post.

Quite whether it looks as fresh and pertinent as it did around 3 hours ago (at 12:02) is, of course, another issue.

As to the smite-trigger: "secret" perhaps contributed? Or would it be that typo "sinmgle". On this, Perry et al, I'm both sympathetic and somewhat knowledgable: but you either need to get a better grip, or explain to me privately those complexities that I clearly do not yet understand. Or else what? That is indeed a good question; let's just say Samizdata's ranking in the right to criticise the nation state of Israel, the religion of Islam, me and the existence of the Tooth Fairy.

Best regards, as always, though snappily on this occasion,

secret, posted at 15:23

Best regards

B is more corrupt.

The money was not given by those from whom it came and the opportunity to alter the deal slips away as it gets worse.

You can say the power in A was not "owned", but on the other hand, the politician does have it legally and can lose it again if they are too obvious. In B, the more blatant they are the more chance they will remain Kleptomeister. E.g. Family Tax Credits - how more obvious can it be? - "apply to us to get you other people's money" has less impact votewise than the sensible option of raising the basic tax allowance.

New Labour is damned either way IMHO, as they do both in spades!

The populace that falls for it.

The real dilemma is what to do if you see Politicians A and B drowning and you can only save one. You're faced with two alternatives: you could go see a movie, or you could have a picnic lunch.

B, by a nose.

And there's nothing you or I can do about it.

The only way to lick the problem is to constitute separate legislatures to (a) legislate and (b) raise taxes.

That way, a politician gets elected either (a) on his legislative promises or (b) his taxing promises. Not both, and that's crucial. To make the standard corrupt bargain with the electorate - "Vote for me, and I'll spend the other guy's money on you" - a politician, or rather a government composed of politicians, must have a hand on each of the levers marked "Tax" and "Spend". Split the two functions, and suddenly the means, opportunity and motive for bribe-'em-with-their-own-money politics evaporates.

Politician B's offer (presumably made to the electorate as a whole) is simply a manifesto pledge, a pretty standard one for socialist parties such as the one we're currently suffering under. And generally speaking, politician B keeps to his word and does exactly as he said he would do. It's his ideology that is corrupt.

Politician A's offer, on the other hand, is presumably made in secret to an individual. If he keeps his word and gives his co-conspirator power, then he is corrupt.

That's my take on it.

What I find so interesting about this is that both answers are getting votes, with logical, reasoned arguments behind them, and both sides make good sense.

Since I seem to agree with both sides, I suppose that means I see both politicians as badly corrupt. But that's a cop-out.

And since this is a political discussion, I declare this good sense and logical discourse to be a sign of the coming apocalypse. :)