The Great Enabler of Political Corruption – The Supreme Court

The Great Enabler of Political Corruption – The Supreme Court

Wanna Buy an Election or a Judge?

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” From Article 1, Section 4 of the US Constitution.

Pretending that state voter exclusion laws, except where there is expressed language that clearly violates a constitutional prohibition, are fully protected by Article 1, Section 4 (the “elections clause” – see above) and that campaign finance restrictions are severely limited by the free speech provision of the First Amendment, has created a uniquely American version of what is illegal and deemed corruption or fostering corruption. Like our lax gun laws, it is quite different from laws in almost all other democracies, but an acceptable American practice. Thank you Supreme Court. Are they truly legitimizing corruption?

The overt acceptance by Clarence Thomas of lavish travel, from a “friend” with a very explicit political agenda, seems otherwise minor. After all there are virtually no ethical rules that apply to the Supreme Court. The harsh reality is that the Court’s constitutional interpretations over the years have created a ripe playing field for special interests and rich political constituencies that can no longer win or sway elections unless opposing voters can be limited or eliminated. Lies are welcome, and the broad interpretation of the “safe harbor” (excepting most social media platforms from liability from toxic posts) – under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act – keeps them coming with devastating political consequences.

Special interests are jumping for joy as the above safe harbor is safer than ever, as the EPA has been defanged by several cases culminating in the May 25th Sackett vs EPA, a Supreme Court ruling that pulled vast amount of America’s precarious wetlands from environmental protection, and as property rights have emerged as the Court’s overriding priority. But the Court has a significant modern history of exonerating elected and other senior officials from all sorts of criminal acts. Writing for the May 30th Associated Press (in the Los Angeles Times), Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a Brennan Center fellow and law professor at the Stetson University College of Law, hones in on recent Roberts Court’s rulings exonerating corruption as most of us understand it:

“The Supreme Court recently reversed the conviction of a onetime aide and campaign manager for disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The decision may have surprised those who follow Albany’s culture of corruption, but it was thoroughly in keeping with the recent history of the Supreme Court. The Roberts court has been busy deregulating corruption for over a decade… The court’s own ethics have come under renewed scrutiny lately thanks to revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas, among others. What’s less widely appreciated is the court’s accumulating record of making political corruption easier to engage in and harder to prosecute.

“The corruption conviction of Joseph Percoco [Cuomo’s “enforcer” who was looking into New York corruption] did not exactly come out of left field. Cuomo had to resign from office in ignominy after he was credibly accused of a long pattern of sexual harassment, and he didn’t enjoy a sterling reputation beforehand. In 2014, he made the not-suspicious-at-all decision to disband a commission that was investigating corruption in the state around the time it started getting too close to his friends…

“Political corruption is a bipartisan, nationwide problem. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been legalizing corruption in cases involving both campaign finance and white-collar crime well beyond the Percoco case… This has been a big change. Under Roberts’ predecessor as chief justice, William H. Rehnquist, the Supreme Court routinely upheld reasonable campaign finance rules as a means of preventing corruption. And the Rehnquist court had a broad definition of corruption that encompassed rich donors’ power to ‘call the tune’ for elected officials.

“The Roberts court has taken a decidedly different tack in cases such as McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission (2014), which undid some campaign contribution limits for individuals. Suddenly, wealthy contributors’ extraordinary access to elected officials was to be expected; it was no longer regarded as a facet of corrosive and potentially corrupt relationships between the donor class and elected officials. In Davis vs. Federal Election Commission (2008), in fact, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asserted that campaign finance laws discriminate against the rich.

“This upside-down way of looking at the world showed up in a string of cases culminating in Citizens United [vs FEC, 2010], which allows corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money on American elections. The Supreme Court no longer acknowledges that corporate political spending could possibly corrupt candidates.

“The Roberts court has also become the corrupt defendant’s best friend in a series of cases involving white-collar crimes… In Skilling vs. United States (2010), for example, the court dramatically narrowed the definition of honest services fraud, a federal crime that has been crucial to prosecuting corruption. Jeffrey Skilling, the notorious crook who ran Enron, got 10 years knocked off his prison sentence as a result.

“In McDonnell vs. United States (2016), the court rescued former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell from the hoosegow even though he took or borrowed money, clothes, a Rolex and a Ferrari, among other gifts, from a donor. And in Kelly vs. United States, the court spared the aides behind former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal the prison term a jury thought they richly deserved.

“These opinions have ranged from narrow majorities to unanimity, but one of the most consistent votes for deregulating corruption has been Thomas.” The recipient of luxurious “gifts.” And no, while there may be right wing components to some of these decisions and clearly they favor the rich with luxuries to lavish and campaign money to funnel, the prior GOP appointed Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, seemed to believe in protecting freedom with reasonable campaign and election limitations. What we have today is a system of justice that no longer supports equal representation under our election laws, flaunts the exemptions accorded the mega rich, and openly encourages elected and appointed officials to enjoy the “wink-wink” benefits of their office. Lying under other at Supreme Court confirmation hearings is also without recourse.

I’m Peter Dekom, and increasingly the words “public trust” have become an oxymoron and a sad indictment that goes well beyond the purported criminal and civil violations that define the Donald Trump era.