So, many of you many of heard of the quixotic quest a law prof at Fordham effected a month or two ago.  Dr. Zephyr Teachout ran against Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic Gubernatorial slot.  While many expected her to garner about 25% of the vote, she did manage to tally about 35%, primarily as a result of the ethics issues swirling about Cuomo.

While she lost that quest, it was totally in line with her positions as she espoused in her new book, “Corruption in America”.  It wouldn’t take a genius to recognize that one of her biggest complaints would be against the Citizens United decision, one the Supreme Court (SCOTUS- Supreme Court of the United States) hoisted on the US citizenry that has managed- and will continue- to promote rampant corruption.

Interestingly, SCOTUS does not believe that free-wheeling spending on elections by business will yield corruption.  This from members of the Court that railed against activist court decisions and the need to “revert to the principles of the Constitution”.  Obviously, they never studied the words of Jefferson, Madison, or Mason- or even recalled the actions of Ben Franklin that were mired in corruption scandals.

It was these folks fears of corruption that set up the composition of the House and Senate- and the need for staggered terms of office. Or, why our Constitution states “No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust . . . shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”  Just out of curiosity- do you see any quid pro quo standard in those words?  Of course not- it was the whiff of corruption our forefathers were trying to avoid.

SCOTUS currently holds that corruption requires a specific quid pro quo.   Which is a real problem- since we never hear the true words or thoughts of a specific donor- or see them in print.  But, you can bet the plethora of lobbyists that foist money on the 535 denizens of Capitol Hill are clearly not throwing their cash away- and truly expect plenty for their money.  And, is that not why every single denizen of Capital Hill spends hours each day begging for contributions- who, of course, are never swayed to take votes based upon those funds.  (Really?  Want to buy a bridge in the Sahara Desert?)

This is similar to the issue I discussed some two years ago– the law does not understand the concepts of science- even if they rely upon their results.   Legislators and Court officials do not know the thoughts of those who provide this money to our elected representatives, they don’t know their motives, and have clearly proved they don’t comprehend the economic pressures that drive folks to do what they do.

And, don’t think this is a new action by SCOTUS.  It’s been moving in this direction since Rehnquist (a Reagan appointee) was on board.  In 1991, SCOTUS overturned a politician’s conviction because there was no “explicit promise” to effect a quid pro quo  (McCormick v. United States).

I guess we will have to see if they join the “conversation” about (ex-) Governor McDonnell’s bribery conviction.  One thing for sure, the Commonwealth (of Virginia) will be effecting a structural rule- banning all gifts to public officials over a given value.  There’s only 49 more states that need such regulations- and let’s not forget Capitol Hill and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Share this: