After Citizens United, Supreme Court looks ready to legalize political bribery...

[Human101948]

In its Citizens United ruling, the court gutted campaign finance laws. It acknowledged that American politics faced the threat of gift­givers and donors trying to corrupt the system, but it held that campaign finance laws were the
wrong way to deal with that problem; bribery laws were the better path. Now, though, the court seems ready to gut bribery laws, saying that campaign finance laws provide a better approach. But if both campaign finance laws and bribery laws are now regarded as problematic, what’s left?

With the Supreme Court apparently imagining that there is some other, simple­ to­ enforce bribery law, we citizens are left empty­handed. This is the first case since Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing to directly address what corruption is; the issue is a critical test of the court.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the framers devoted themselves to building a system that would be safe from moneyed influence. “If we do not provide against corruption,” argued the Virginia delegate George Mason, “our government will soon be at an end.”

Today, Virginia’s former governor proposes that there is a “fundamental constitutional right” to buy and sell access. If the court finds in his favor, it will have turned corruption from a wrong into a right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/opinion/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-free-rolex.html?emc=edit_th_20160429&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=70251688

[DetlefK]

1. You know, China has the death-penalty for corruption...

[dubyadiprecession]

2. Scalia's replacement will be the vote to eliminate Citizens United.

This absurdly constructed law will not stand much longer.

[Human101948]

3. Let's hope so...

Though I am not sure that President Obama's nominee will guarantee that result. Very pro business.

[byronius]

10. I agree, and I think it will be a wonderful thing.

The equivalent of Scalia's knife being removed from the national back.

Next up: Gerrymandering and restrictive Voter ID laws declared illegal.

And that will be the end of the GOP, who survives only by such methods. When it's over, they'll have a well-deserved 10% representation in our civil democracy.

[navarth]

12. sounds wonderful

May it be so. I sure hope you're right.

[deminks]

4. Then overturn the conviction of Rod Blagojevich if there is a fundamental right to sell Obama's seat

and for christsakes overturn the wrongful conviction of Don Siegelman no matter what happens here.

It is only ok to be corrupt if you are a goper

[Katashi_itto]

5. Hope they rule for it. At least no one will continue to be under the illusion we are in a

democracy.

Clinton can simply sell access openly.

[ReRe]

6. There's a loophole...

... a multinational can drive a semi-truck through. More "legal corruption."
That's all we need. When is this ship of state going to go over the cliff? SOS!

[Overseas]

7. K&R. This is definitely a case to watch.

[Kablooie]

8. Just what we need. More legal ways for money to buy politicians.

Americans are being crushed by the huge mountain of gold heaped up on top of us.

And it doesn't help that all the super-rich assholes are dancing away up on top.

[NoMoreRepugs]

9. the mindset of conservatives boggles my mind

....."Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. expressed disbelief that an official requesting agency action on behalf of a big donor would be a problem."

Seriously????

[JDPriestly]

11. Quotes I like from that article:

As modern corruption law developed, the axiom that an official shouldn’t accept gifts for public duties, broadly understood, was a basic feature of American law. The Supreme Court has held that under the Hobbs Act, “the Government need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts.”

Otherwise, only the most unsophisticated criminal would ever get caught. A clumsy influence seeker might write an email offering “five diamonds for five votes in Congress,” but the powerful corrupting forces in our society would avoid explicit deals and give lavish gifts tied to meetings and speeches, winking and nodding all the while.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/opinion/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-free-rolex.html?emc=edit_th_20160429&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=70251688

Meanwhile, Don Siegelman is still in prison.

[RiverNoord]

13. A little known fact of Constitutional history...

The word 'corruption' was in early drafts of the Constitution (Article II, section 4), accompanying treason and bribery as explicit grounds for impeachment of a President, Vice President, and civil officers of the United States.

Concerns were expressed in committee (perhaps, quite reasonable ones) during the Convention that, although 'treason' and 'bribery' were pretty specific, 'corruption' was much less so, and could be used in bad faith to remove political opponents from office through impeachment. Additionally, it was discussed that 'corruption' was included in 'bribery,' as political corruption involves acting on behalf of a party that is providing you with material benefit to do so, which is basically the same thing as bribery. So, corruption was dropped. (And a suggestion to include 'maladministration' never got into a draft.)

This ought to be very, very informative on the concept of Bribery at the time the Constitution was ratified. According to the standards of the 1780s, actual bribery is practiced on a massive scale as everyday business in today's politics, and just about every President and Vice President at least as far back as Reagan/Bush should have been impeached and removed after their first week in office.

Fascinating that someone like Clarence Thomas, (OK, he's a lunatic, but...) who claims to be a strict 'originalist,' (and Scalia, when he was on the Bench), would completely ignore the Constitution's clear proscription against bribery when ruling that parties can use wealth to engage in it on a completely routine basis. There is, by far, a clearer Constitutional proscription against it than, say, a grant of a 'personal right' to bear firearms by way of the Second Amendment, which seems to indicate that the right to bear arms is tied to the maintenance of well-regulated militias. These guys have always been quite OK with bribery, but have completely ignored the 'well-regulated militia' statement of the Second Amendment.

A constitutional Amendment explicitly defining bribery, extending the impeachment power to include Senators and Representatives, and enabling impeachment by State initiative (like the Amendment process), would get things moving in the right direction.

[JDPriestly]

15. Thanks for the fascinating history. Yes. We need to amend the Constitution to end this

aspect of corruption and bribery.

[Baitball Blogger]

14. Yep. In Florida the legislature dismantled regulations under the guise of removing

duplication and redundancy. Which is not what happened. They removed whatever got in their way.

[Phlem]

16. I'm pretty sure someone will tell them to "Cut it out".

And they absolutely will.

See no worries.

[glinda]

17. ...