"The size of the bribes indicates how much Montesinos was willing to pay to buy off those who could have checked his power. The typical bribe paid to a television-channel owner was about a hundred times larger than that paid to a politician..."

Very interesting analysis, it measures the perceived power of the different political actors.

I'd guess that the reason their bribes were higher isn't because they had more power, but because they had more money. If a politician is making 50k, a 10k bribe would be significant. That same 10k is a drop in the bucket for a tv station owner with millions.

That analysis is partly true, but it is not the main reason. In Peru at the time, whoever controlled the media controlled the thoughts of the people. The politicians have always had a disconnect with the people, and as such, had never carried true political weight from their voters. Ironically, the government was so corrupt, that the job of the media was to provide the checks and balances because they did carry more political weight than any single politician. The main political media venues that were the most serious, had the most integrity and stood against the government were in 1) printed form and 2) not free. In a country that had (still has) high illiteracy rates and where most of their population is below the poverty line, this was a problem. TV is free, and although some people could not read, they most certainly had a TV. Let me disclose that being the son of a politician that had to escape Per because of Montesino's henchman and being lucky to still be alive after a "little" failed bomb incident and various other things, I am glad that son-of-a-bitch is rotting in a prison.

Interesting thought, but do you know any poor politicians? I don't. I certainly wouldn't expect poor corruptible politicians in a country full of corruption.

This is why fines and suchlike should be a function of income, rather than a set rate. I think they do this in sweden, people get speeding fines reaching into many thousands of dollars.

In my country politicians will ask you for a higher participation in a business than a VC.

The sad thing is that Fujimori (who was Montesinos president and partner in crime) almost got a free pass out of prison a month ago by getting his daughter elected. Luckily half of Peruvians still have some kind of memory (I live in Peru) and voted for her opponent.

With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are targets/subjects.

Peruvians should learn from https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gun_politics_...

In the US the corruptors don't have to bribe the Media. They OWN the media. And they are working to own and control the Internet. (See ATT/T-Mobile merger for the next step)

Is this relevant now with the spread of the Internet? As long as a government does not filter or censor the Internet, no single entity can control information and the news.

Italy seems a very recent example (well, media was bought rather than bribed).

You can't necessarily block information, but you can drown it in disinformation.

Of course it is still relevant. The Internet can do many things, but it can't spontaneously create information; someone has to put it on the net for you to read.

So maybe the Montesinos of the 21st century will revert to bribing (or coercing) those with, say, a high Klout score. The medium may be different, but the methods will remain the same....

> "As long as a government does not filter or censor the Internet..."

That's kind of an important condition, isn't it? How many places is that really still true? How long will it last? Anyway, your "single entity" doesn't have to control all the information sources, just most of the ones people listen to.

Broadcast media (as compared with "narrowcast" grassroots media) still plays an enormous role in shaping the national narrative in the US. I would imagine it's the same in Peru.

you are assuming that all people can read and have access to the Internet. In Peru, this is most definitely not the case