arma virumque cano (et alia)
It would be nice if the article showed some genuine data instead of the final results. I did find a study which shows some but comes up with a different ranking. Most of the rankings have the potential for being skewed due to using totals of convictions from 1976, but we can look at data for the year 2010 to the rankings for convictions,N. Ohio. 65E. VA (DC metro) 60NJ. 47N. ILL (Chicago) 46DC 41N. GA 32Central CA 29E. KY 28MA 27W. TX 27http://www.uic.edu/depts/pols/ChicagoPolitics/leadingthepack.pdfHigh gun states indeed.
That's interesting (and convenient) that you found a list that's so totally different.
It's not that surprising. All one has to do is define corruption differently and they'll end up with a different ranking.
I hate these kind of articles because they provide so little data. The study requires registration to access it, but I did find another source that gives more information on the variables studied to arrive at their rankings,"In their analysis, Liu and Mikesell examined more than 25,000 convictions of public officials for violating federal corruption laws. Factors weighed included states’ population, employment and income levels, as well as legal resources, degree of fiscal centralization, political structure and election cycle. The researchers explore two possible theories: First, higher levels of corruption should cause states’ spending levels to be higher than they would be otherwise. Second, corruption would distort states’ spending priorities in ways that favor bribes from private firms and others. "- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/budget/public-officials-corruption-impact-u-s-state-spending#sthash.CsU1xiSl.dpuf
Did this include convictions by other countries of American elected politicians?