Why It’s Time to Make Corruption a Campaign Issue
Adam Smith, in “The Wealth of Nations” (1776), described “economic rent” as income derived from the ownership or control of scarce resources (especially land) rather than from productive labor or innovation. David Ricardo refined this idea with his Law of Rent, showing how landowners profit simply by holding more productive land, not by adding value—establishing a crucial distinction between enterprise-driven profit and gains from exclusivity or scarcity.
Modern economists, building on Smith and Ricardo, define “rent seeking” as the efforts of individuals or groups to increase private wealth without adding new value to society, usually by manipulating public policy or the political environment for financial gain. The concept was rigorously formulated by Gordon Tullock in 1967 and popularized by Anne Krueger soon after. Typical forms include lobbying for subsidies, regulatory protections, exclusive licenses, campaign contributions tied to political favors, and zoning manipulation—actions that redistribute wealth rather than generating growth.
Rent seeking always comes at an opportunity cost: favoring select interests in government transactions inevitably boxes out competitors, especially those competing only on quality and cost. A handful of powerful lobbyists—often representing large corporate interests from out of state—can shape legislation or municipal policy at the expense of local business owners, ranchers, and property holders who helped elect those very officials. The streamlined process for some means lost opportunities for many.
The most corrosive impact of rent seeking is the way it fuels political corruption—legal, illegal, or somewhere in between. When access to legislators and public officials hinges on campaign donations, lunches at the club, or mutually beneficial “arrangements,” public confidence in government erodes. Why should citizens care who represents them if influence is simply bought by those closest to power? As experience in Idaho shows, decades of single-party rule foster entrenched “crony” networks—special interest groups like IACI, IMA, IHA, and IWA—who add little to the underlying value of their industries but wield outsized control over public policy.
Rent seeking is not just a technical economic problem; it is a primary driver of corruption and malaise in modern politics. When favor-seeking replaces open competition, resources are wasted and innovation stifled. The real losers are voters, taxpayers, and honest businesses.
The next gubernatorial race—regardless of party—should make rent seeking, cronyism, and corruption the centerpiece of public discussion. The candidate who genuinely confronts these issues may well have the best chance of restoring faith in public institutions and winning the confidence of “We the People.”
If Idaho, or America, hopes to reclaim its civic spirit, the fight against rent seeking must move to the forefront. Otherwise, entrenched interests will continue to siphon off the wealth and opportunity that should belong to all citizens, not just the politically connected.
