Alex Sheshunoff advocates a capital move on the grounds that Juneau's location is responsible for corruption in Alaskan government. In May 2007, John Strohmeyer, in an effort to sell more copies of one of his books, wrote an editorial similarly reasoned for the ADN. Most everyone ignored it. This, however, is too tempting to pass up so I’ll bite.

Like any number of other policy ideas, moving the capital to reduce corruption is a short-sighted and lazy tactic that fails to get at the root of the problem. Corruption in politics, where it is real and identifiable, is serious and corrosive and shouldn't be exploited to advance agendas that are totally unrelated. Pitting Alaskans against each another, region by region, is neither a constructive nor particularly creative way to address the issue. But electing ethical people in the first place would be a good place to start. As personal friends of several legislators from around the state, I can say that the vast majority work hard and represent their constituents effectively and ethically while in the capital city.

The author claims, "Overall, the farther a state’s capitol is from it’s (sic) major population center, the more likely it’s (sic) officials are to be convicted of corruption," and therefore that moving the Capitol (to Anchorage, presumably,) "could reduce corruption by over 52%." That someone would try to capitalize on the corruption headlines (arrests, convictions, exoneration, sentencings) of the past few years is not surprising but why Juneau specifically is the root of Alaska's corruption is not entirely reasoned or clear. Nonetheless, it’s important to put Alaska's "corruption" into some national perspective.

Quantifying how "corrupt" or "honest" a geographical location is, and why, is difficult and imprecise. Depending on what you decide to cite, one can reach different conclusions. A very quick Google search of "most corrupt states" doesn't turn up much about Alaska. But it does indicate that "corruption," however defined, has more complex roots and definitions than Sheshunoff considers.

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/weekinreview/14marsh.html) recently used three different approaches: overall number of convicted politicians, number of politicians convicted per capita, and a poll of journalists on which states were the most corrupt. Florida, the District of Columbia, and Rhode Island are at the top of each respective chart. (Alaska only shows up on one of the three, at No. 5, in the "per capita" chart.) Tallahassee, DC, and Providence are situated in centers of accessibility and population density levels that Alaska will probably never approach.

In several articles over the past few years, the New York Post suggests the top spot for most corrupt state is a never-ending contest between New York and its neighboring New Jersey, depending on events in Albany and Trenton. Alaska receives no mention. The Post also cites a July 2009 Chicago Sun-Times story noting that 42 FBI agents are investigating public corruption in the Windy City, while Trenton, NJ had one-third fewer resident corruption agents than Chicago.

The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/27/louisiana-beats-illinois_n_180051.html) expresses puzzlement at how, according to the Chicago Tribune's analysis of corrupt states, Louisiana still is ranked more corrupt than Illinois. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-corruption-louisiana_wittmar27,0,2957672.story) Huffington states, "Ranked according to corruption convictions per capita from 1998-2007, Louisiana is No. 3, well ahead of Illinois at No. 19. (Only Washington, D.C., and North Dakota ranked higher and in North Dakota's case, the results were skewed because of its extremely small population.)" Keep that skewed population factoid in mind when considering Alaska's ranking.

Now, since there have been actual arrests and convictions in places like Alaska and North Dakota, couldn't that mean the system is actually working in these places, as opposed to other states where corruption is so entrenched, ignored, and accepted that it goes unchecked? The placement, in Sheshunoff’s selected USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-10-corruptstates_N.htm) article, of Illinois and New Jersey, at No. 17 and No. 10, respectively, suggest it might. On that note, one has to wonder whether the author of the graph placing those two states so far down the list was either visited by operatives from Chicago or Newark or party to a little corruption himself.

Why should Alaskans be more ashamed of our own state than we should be of the federal prosecutors, some of whom are facing indictment for literally making things up about Sen. Ted Stevens to obtain a false conviction? I'm embarrassed but not surprised the Senator's name even came up in Sheshunoff’s assessment. But let's presume for the sake of argument that Alaska is the most corrupt state in the country. How, specifically, would moving the capital change that?

Does the author really believe that if he had a shorter commute to our capital he could play spy hunter or hall monitor, following lawmakers around to make sure they never ever do anything naughty? Are the bars at the Cook and Petroleum Club better lit or less noisy than the Baranof or the Triangle so whistleblowers could see and hear unlawful interactions more clearly?

And what about the media? Aren’t they paid to snoop around and sniff out wheeling and dealing? We’ve always had a pretty aggressive press here during legislative session - just ask former governors Frank Murkowski or Sarah Palin. In 2002 when Murkowski came into office, there were nineteen reporters in the Capitol Press Corps. Would they have been better at sleuthing if they were in Anchorage?

While Sheshunoff claims a statistical moral advantage over us by virtue of our physical location, I guess I should be grateful he didn’t accuse us of harboring a native criminal class or dismiss us as victims of an ethics-altering water supply. (The City has used old AJ mine tunnels as temporary storage for water so you never know.) But just one question: If the capital had been closer to Anchorage, wouldn’t that have placed the legislative process in closer proximity to Bill Allen and even more of his interests, resources, and people?

Sheshunoff's argument also leaves out a critical piece of data. Looking over the various rankings, the author chooses the sole per-capita chart which conveniently omits Washington, DC from the list. The New York Times had Washington DC topping its version of the same graph. In other words, DC, which is itself a giant (and growing) population center situated within a few hours’ drive - or bus, train, plane, or Potomac riverboat ride - from several of the largest cities in the country, ranks higher in corruption than all three cities the author cites (Bismarck, Baton Rouge, and Juneau) as suffering the corruption-by-virtue-of-distance-from-bigger cities-effect.

I’m remembering the saying that "all roads lead to Rome." By the author's calculus, the centralization of the empire in that great and well-roaded population center surely kept Rome's unfathomable levels of corruption at much lower levels than they'd have otherwise been in a less accessible capital. Correct? So is the public-minded author supportive of the Juneau Access project? Most Alaskans favor a road to the capital. I doubt the desire to drive down here to personally halt political corruption ranks very high among reasons why, but if that would be Mr. Sheshunoff's motivation, he'd be no less welcome.

The shrewdest possible response to this very long post would be, "Calm down, Paulette, my post was 100% tongue-in-cheek." In which case I'll let it slide.