Oguzhan Dincer and Michael Johnston of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics Corruption at Harvard have posted results from a survey of reporters on their perceptions of corruption in their states.  The survey asked about both illegal corruption (defined as “the private gains in the form of cash or gifts by a government official, in exchange for providing specific benefits to private individuals or groups”) and legal corruption (“the political gains in the form of campaign contributions or endorsements by a government official, in exchange for providing specific benefits to private individuals or groups, be it by explicit or implicit understanding”).   They conclude that:

With respect to illegal corruption, Arizona is perceived to be the most corrupt state, followed by a second group of states, which includes California and Kentucky, and third group that includes Alabama, Illinois, and New Jersey. Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, the Dakotas, and Vermont are perceived to be the least corrupt states, followed by a second group of states that includes Michigan and Oregon. Kentucky is not only perceived to be illegally corrupt but also legally corrupt. With respect to legal corruption, Kentucky is the most corrupt state followed by Illinois and Nevada while Massachusetts is the least corrupt state followed Michigan, Oregon, and Vermont. It is all bad news for Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, New Mexico, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania as their aggregate scores are in the highest quartiles of both illegal and legal corruption. Not so bad news for the Dakotas, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Vermont, and Wyoming, which are perceived least corrupt both illegally and legally.

I note that the survey’s definition of “legal corruption” actually includes some actions that would generally constitute illegal bribery — specifically, the exchange of campaign contributions for specific official acts, at least where there’s an explicit offer or agreement.