by Joyce McClure, Bridge2Blue
Suppose a president helps shape American policy toward a foreign country.
Later, members of that president’s family—and the family of a senior Cabinet official—acquire financial interests connected to a major business venture in that same country.
Should that even be possible let alone acceptable?
That’s the question raised by recent reporting about a Kazakhstan mining venture involving the families of President Donald Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Whether anyone ultimately concludes that laws were broken isn’t the only issue. Americans shouldn’t have to wonder whether public policy and private financial interests are becoming intertwined.
The Founders worried about exactly that.
They understood that public office creates opportunities for personal gain, which is why they included the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses. They weren’t assuming every future president would be dishonest. They were acknowledging something much more basic: power changes incentives. Democracies need guardrails because trusting individual officeholders isn’t enough.
Unfortunately, many Americans no longer believe those guardrails are working.
A new Brennan Center for Justice survey found that 92 percent of registered voters believe corruption is a major systemic problem in American government. Republicans, Democrats, and independents reached virtually identical conclusions. Nearly two-thirds believe corruption is built into the system itself rather than simply the work of a few bad actors. And when asked why corruption persists, 79 percent pointed to one answer above almost everything else: there aren’t enough consequences.
That’s an extraordinary finding.
For years we’ve argued about whether politicians are corrupt. Perhaps we’ve been asking the wrong question.
The real question is why our institutions seem increasingly unable—or unwilling—to prevent corruption, conflicts of interest, or even the appearance of self-dealing before public confidence is damaged.
Donald Trump didn’t create that problem. But he has exposed it. Throughout both of his presidencies, he has repeatedly tested ethical norms that previous presidents generally tried to avoid. Some Americans see that as refreshing. Others see it as dangerous.
Regardless of where one stands politically, something has undeniably changed. Public debate has shifted from, “Should a president do this?” to, “Can a president get away with this?” That’s a very different standard.
Virginia should pay attention. Not because corruption is uniquely a Washington problem, but because Virginians will soon elect leaders of their own.
Every campaign season brings familiar promises. Candidates pledge transparency. Integrity. Ethics reform. Then governing begins, priorities change, and those promises quietly fade into the background. Maybe it’s time to stop rewarding promises.
Here’s an idea. Every candidate for public office should publish five specific accountability commitments before Election Day. Not broad aspirations. Specific commitments.
- What ethics reforms will you sponsor?
- How will you strengthen transparency?
- What conflicts of interest will you prohibit?
- How will you protect whistleblowers?
- What will you do to make the government more accountable to the public?
Then comes the part that almost never happens. One year after taking office, every elected official should issue a public report to the people who elected them.
- Here’s what I promised.
- Here’s what I accomplished.
- Here’s what I couldn’t accomplish.
- Here’s why.
If circumstances change, explain them. If legislation failed, explain why. If a promise turns out to be unrealistic, own it. Public service shouldn’t end with campaign promises. It should include reporting back to the people who entrusted you with their vote.
We require annual reports from corporations. Nonprofits report to their donors. Governments publish budgets and performance measures. Why shouldn’t elected officials publish an annual accountability report to the citizens they serve?
As a child, I watched my father serve as a city manager. He believed public officials should avoid not only wrongdoing but even the appearance of wrongdoing. Public trust, he understood, is built quietly over years and can disappear almost overnight. Years later I lived on the island of Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia where candidates openly distributed cash, rice, liquor, and other gifts through influential chiefs, who then shared them within their communities. While living in Guam, I learned that family relationships often carry more political weight than party labels at the ballot box.
Those political cultures developed under circumstances very different from ours. But they taught me something I have never forgotten. Corruption rarely begins with dramatic scandals. It begins when people stop expecting better. When they shrug. When they decide that’s simply how politics works.
I never imagined Americans would one day watch conduct that once would have been politically unthinkable and react with little more than weary resignation.
Virginia has an opportunity to choose a different path. If Democrats believe ethical government is one of their strongest issues—and I think they’re right—candidates shouldn’t simply ask Virginians to trust them. They should invite Virginians to measure them. Democracies don’t depend on perfect leaders. They depend on institutions that make accountability difficult to avoid.
The Brennan Center poll suggests Americans already understand how deeply destructive and corrosive the current level of corruption is to our institutions and the basic function of public services.
The next election shouldn’t be about proving corruption exists. It should be about proving that our guardrails can still work.
