We then see, nearly every day, the pernicious effect wealth can have on the public sector. What then, is the logical alternative? Two methods are generally employed by well-meaning statists.

The first is to limit the application of money into the political or judicial realm. While this option seems beneficial on the surface, it actually causes the public sector to function more despotically and less democratically. How is a poor individual expected to successfully run for office, if not with the financial aid of wealthy supporters? How is a business able to participate in the democratic process, if not to be able to pay individuals to argue on their behalf? Why would a wealthy individual, one who has earned great success, not be able to most efficiently defend himself against frivolous charges and/or an intrusive state?

To leave money completely out of politics is to leave the state to function independently of the people, and to do so would facilitate only more unfairness and inequality. However, more attention must be devoted toward the second option.

Statists then move to limit the amount of wealth one can accrue. The argument, then, is that if financial clout is relatively more equal throughout the populace, that the negative effects of corruption can be eliminated.

The argument is short sighted. The problem inherant to corrupt governance is not that some people are able to wield more power, but that corruption exists and is pervasive. If the statists admit that corruption exists, and that wealth causes corruption, what benefit would result from simply increasing the number of individuals with the ability to participate in the corruption? Put simply, if money is the problem, spreading it around will not solve the problem.

Furthermore, if redistribution is enacted, ceteris paribus, the individual levels of corruption-inducing power will not be completely equal until wealth is fully balanced into a communist state. The problems with a communist state aside, the point remains that redistribution in itself is a highly inefficient solution to a serious problem.

However, an even more concerning auxiliary effect of redistribution is that, quite simply, it punishes the wrong party. The problem of corruption is not coterminous with the problem of wealth acquisition. There are two guilty parties in a corrupt payoff scheme. First is the individual who pays, and the other who receives. The latter, by logical conclusion, is the greater of the evils. The corrupt politician violates the public trust, while the ambitious businessman, while immoral, is so to a lesser degree.

Why would wealth be punished, without respect to its use? The power of wealth can be wielded for many beneficial endeavors, and even more non-corrupt endeavors.

Put simply, the wealthy man is not guilty of crimes he has not committed. To redistribute wealth is to take money against another's will. To do so is a punitive action. Why would the state, rather than dealing with its own problems of corruption, punish the individual who has done no wrong except achieve financial success?

The only efficient prevention of money's influence in politics and law is to reduce its ability to influence. It is not to reduce its prevalence or force its distribution. The state can combat the wealthy defense lawyer with more efficient district attorneys and public defenders. Congress can become more impervious to corruption with increased scrutiny of voting records, campaign contributions, and closed-door meetings. There are efficient solutions to the problem of corruption, but they all lie within the scope of the problem. Corruption is a problem not because money exists or people have it, but the legal system is incompletely independent of it.

The public sector must make strides to become independent of the private sector. This action will have numerous auxiliary benefits, but it will most importantly limit the influence of wealth.

However, to punish the wealthy is not only inefficient, but it is the most egregious miscarriage of the ideals of justice the state is entrusted to protect. In a court of law, to punish an individual unjustly is unlawful. In the public sector, legislation that acts congruently should be viewed with similar disdain.

If the unequal distribution of wealth is unable to facilitate corruption and unfairness in the public sector, it would exist as its basic purpose: a reward of productivity.