We Have All Become Too Comfortable With Corruption
from the seems-bad dept
For years, we’ve written about the concept of “soft corruption,” which is the idea that there are certain actions that may not mean the full definition of corrupt practices in the legal sense, but are so obviously corrupt that they make people more cynical towards those who claim to represent our interests in the government.
Lately, of course, it feels like the corruption is becoming more and more blatant. But there’s something telling about how soft corruption works: it operates by creating an atmosphere where everyone implicitly understands the game, but no one says it out loud. Though, apparently, that may be changing. Teddy Schleifer got a fascinating quote from Wall Street investor (and LimeWire founder… and RFK Jr. anti-vax funder) Mark Gorton, who was one of Andrew Cuomo’s biggest donors in his complete flop of a New York City mayoral run/comeback from disgrace:
If you can’t read the screenshot, it reads:
As donors try to assess their next moves in the mayoral race, one of the biggest donors to Andrew Cuomo’s super PAC, the investor Mark Gorton, said he is likely to back Mamdani. That is because of the support that Mamdani had gotten from Brad Lander, who Gorton said he ranked first. “I feel like people misunderstood my $250,000 for Cuomo for real enthusiasm,” Gorton said in an interview. “It was basically, ‘Oh, looks like Cuomo is coming back. We don’t want to be shut out. Let’s try and get on his good side.’ That’s kind of how things work with Cuomo. It’s sad political pragmatism. I wish we lived in a world where those sort of things were not useful things to do.”
Read that again. “That’s kind of how things work with Cuomo.” A quarter-million dollar donation, described casually as protection money to avoid being “shut out” by a politician with a reputation for vindictive retaliation against those who cross him. And Gorton’s matter-of-fact tone suggests this isn’t scandalous—it’s just Wednesday in American politics.
This is notable on multiple levels, starting with the fact that one of Cuomo’s biggest donors didn’t even rank Cuomo first on the ranked-choice ballot. But, the real story is the honest admission from Gorton that the only reason he felt he needed to cough up a quarter of a million dollars to Cuomo was to stay in his good graces.
This is soft corruption in its purest form: not a quid pro quo, not a bag of cash, just the quiet understanding that those who don’t pay tribute risk being frozen out when decisions get made.
What makes Gorton’s admission so damning isn’t just what it says about Cuomo—it’s what it reveals about how normalized this has become. We’re not talking about some back-room deal or smoking-gun evidence. We’re talking about a major political donor casually explaining, to a reporter, that a $250,000 contribution was essentially protection money. The fact that he’s comfortable saying this publicly suggests that everyone already knows this is how the game works.
Of course, in this case, it may have also contributed to Cuomo’s loss to Zohran Mamdani. Even as some people remained critical or cautious of Mamdani’s policy proposals, he came across as real and earnestly wanting to help actual people in New York, whereas Andrew Cuomo came across as… Andrew Fucking Cuomo, deeply cynical and a career political opportunist with no fundamental principles or beliefs beyond the pursuit of power.
This kind of soft corruption creates a feedback loop that undermines democratic governance in ways that are harder to prosecute but just as destructive as outright bribery. When wealthy donors make contributions not because they believe in a candidate but because they fear retaliation, it distorts the entire political process. Politicians learn that intimidation works better than persuasion. Donors learn that access requires tribute. And the public learns that their representatives answer to whoever can afford the protection money.
It’s also worth noting how this normalizes the harder (and even more blatant) corruption we’re seeing at the federal level. When “stay on his good side” donations become routine political pragmatism, it’s a shorter leap to the kind of brazen pay-to-play schemes we’re witnessing with Trump’s corporate deal approval power and Meta’s $25 million protection payment. The soft corruption creates the cultural infrastructure that makes the hard corruption possible.
But, really, the main takeaway from this is that we’ve become so inured to the corruption all around us that major political donors can casually describe protection rackets to reporters without expecting any blowback.
When the quiet part gets said out loud—and nobody seems particularly surprised—we’ve crossed a line. We’ve moved from a system where corruption hides in shadows to one where it operates in plain sight, confident that we’ve all accepted it as just how things work.
The real question isn’t whether we’ll slide into a system where corruption operates openly—we’re already there. Trump’s presidency has made it clear that the “soft” and “hard” corruption aren’t sequential phases but parallel systems. While Gorton was cutting checks to stay in Cuomo’s good graces, Trump was openly selling access, handing out get out of jail free cards to those who help him, and now requiring corporate executives to kiss his ring for deal approvals.
What Gorton’s casual admission reveals isn’t a warning about where we might be headed—it’s evidence of how thoroughly we’ve normalized the foundation that makes brazen kleptocracy possible. When protection rackets become “sad political pragmatism” that donors discuss matter-of-factly with reporters, we’ve already crossed every meaningful line.
The question now is whether we have any capacity left to recognize that this isn’t normal, isn’t inevitable, and isn’t something we have to accept. Because once we’ve shrugged our way through both the soft corruption and the hard corruption, what’s left to protect?
Filed Under: andrew cuomo, corruption, mark gorton, nyc, politics, protection rackets, soft corruption, zohran mamdani




Comments on “We Have All Become Too Comfortable With Corruption”
First?
I would love to hear from the younger folks about What they didnt/did Learn about Who and HOW the Citizens RUN the government.
And if they understand the 2/4 year election pattern. And if they THINK that it has been Overridden.
… we”re all comfortable with Soft Corruption because its an inherent part of politics and government — money buys influence … and always has.
The only remedy is to limit the Influence (governmnmtal power) that politicians have to sell.
Less arbitrary power means less goodies for sale.
Re:
That’s just the same outcome in a different set of clothes. You can’t buy the goodies only because they are given to you for free.
Republicans never met a boot they didn’t want to lick. So long as the boots are being put to “the right people” (i.e., brown people, queer people, women with the temerity to act like people instead of property), Republicans will gladly accept corruption and fascism.
Re: A pitance?
So they want someone to lookup to and Some one to pray to.
Dont cover about 40% of the farmers and ranchers nor 60% of the religious folk, Unless you are in the area around Utah.
Then those lean red, and Iv talked to many and they are NOT happy with trump and suggest those responsible are Passed them Further into the red.
Zombies/Zealots? or Promised LOTS of money?
Re:
This post is about a Democrat though. Andrew Cuomo is a Democrat. A corrupt Democrat, but a Democrat. Therein lies the ultimate problem though. People are willing to accept a bad behavior from “their side” because “at least it’s better than the other guy”. What we really need is a culture that is not accepting of corruption full stop. Don’t support corrupt Democrats. Don’t support corrupt Republicans.
Re: Re:
To be fair, Democrats are more likely to condemn Democratic sins than Republicans are with their own. This isn’t an equal both sides scenario. There are corrupt Democrats and many leftists cheer when they leave office or get arrested.
Re: Re: Wonderful Idea
And the Church can excommunicate how many Rich person, and be Poor as the rest of us. But it didnt.
Defining Corruption Down
Probably worth noting how the Supreme Court has fed into this, with a series of rulings over the past few decades that have greatly defined corruption down. Asking for “donations” to a campaign that’s over? Fine. Paying a politician for access to government officials? Fine. Straight up asking a constituent for money after doing them a favor? Fine. The way it is now, anything short of an explicit quid pro quo arrangement made in advance of a public act isn’t technically corruption.
Re:
Not only that, but our faithful public servants on the Court make countless, selfless sacrifices by accepting transparent bribes and then only admitting to them when caught red handed.
Re:
It may look like that, but it’s not an accurate view. The court doesn’t decide what’s “fine”, just what’s legal—this being everything that can’t be shown to violate any specific law. And the crooks are writing the laws they’ll later exploit the loopholes of.
“Corruption” isn’t an actual crime, so it’s unlikely that the Supreme Court will get to officially decide whether the term “corrupt” applies to a politician. And it would be considered improper for them to give unofficial public comments about such things.
Re:
The fundamental error there is that SCOTUS (and plenty of other people all over the political spectrum) view money as speech when money is power.
Send me $100,000 in bitcoin and I’ll forget that you mentioned corruption.
The problem seems in large part to stem from judges applying an overly-literal reading of the law to the matter. Too often, despite the prosecution giving enough evidence to convince a jury of the matter beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge will hold that since the prosecution didn’t show an outright admission of corruption in so many words the charges have to be dismissed before going to the jury. Yet the law itself doesn’t require such an admission, just that the acts themselves meet the criteria for corrupt acts. I recall the same thing being true back when it was Mafia bosses being prosecuted, and lately when MAGA firebrands set up a gallows and said Pence should be hung but didn’t exactly say “Bring Pence here so we can hang him.”. The intent is there, but since it’s implied rather than stated explicitly it never gets to the people who’re allowed to decide whether the implication is sufficiently clear.
SCOTUS’s (unfortunately bipartisan!) repeated decisions narrowing what counts as bribery have not helped. We’ve actually repeatedly passed laws that would crack down on this sort of thing, and it keeps propping it right back up. These days, anything short of a cartoon caricature apparently doesn’t meet the legal definition. That said, this particular form isn’t new. This has been going on since the Founding, to one degree or another.
Reforming SCOTUS is hard, but a good place to start would be tools in existing private organizations like the Democratic party that punish this sort of behavior. Dropping Cuomo is a start. Blackballing anyone who backed his comeback would be even better. Nevermind prosecuting him for other things he’s done (and there’s almost always something with these people, be it sexual assault or otherwise)
"Gifts"
In the UK politicians are allowed to accept “gifts” as long as they’re declared. It’s more of the same soft corruption. Why are corporations giving gifts to politicians? It’s not because it’s their birthday, and it’s not because they’re ardent supporters of democracy…
It’s because of the quid pro quo, direct or otherwise.
And the worst bit is that everyone knows it. I work in financial services, I can’t accept anything more than the price of cup of coffee without declaring it. And I can’t accept anything over £25. And I have zero friggin’ influence.
But that’s how it should be and how it is in most organisations.
Instead we have politicians accepting freebies all over the place and we just nod along.
Re:
One thing that might help is to separate the campaign from the politician. You can donate to his campaign but the money belongs to the campaign, not him. The campaign has to track all donations over (say) $100, and when the election is over it has to return all unspent money to the donors based on the proportion of their donation to the total donations received. No carrying money over from one campaign to another, no spending money on things the politician as opposed to the campaign will keep.
Re: Re:
Returning unspent funds to donors would be a huge change, but I’m not entirely convinced it couldn’t be gamed with “consultant fees” and other similarly fuzzy accounting.
And of course any such rules don’t work well when enforcement is left to the people ostensibly bound by said rules.
Excuse me for asking but you have members of the government that have been able to make a LOT of money from the markets, at levels that are so above what specialized investment firms can do that it seems probable those politicians are using trading knowledge coming from information they have access to, and use it to make money on the markets.
Have those politicians and their investments been investigated ? How can they explain to be able to make so much money without any data and information they are being given, as a form of corruption, by the companies ?
Instead of paying a politician, give them information so they can buy or sale shares, then make your decisions in the company and those politicians, indirectly from the market, get money through indirect corruption…
This has been going on for decades. Why is this not investigated ?