7 years ago
9
Supreme Court Eliminates Political Corruption! (By Defining It Out of Existence)
Unlike the rest of us, the Supreme Court thinks there are too many restrictions on money in politics, not too few. By Jon Schwarz.
Continue Reading
https://theintercept.com
Join the Discussion
They didn't define anything out of existence, they simply said you don't get to call something corruption simply because you don't like it. From the account in that article, the Governor didn't do anything that every other politician in the country doesn't do, on a daily basis. Lobbying for constituents isn't "corruption", it's the main function of their job.
So Rolexes, fly-in shopping sprees, fat checks, iPhones, airline tickets, sundry and various piles of shrink-wrapped packages of hundred dollar bills, family vacations, landscaping, cash engagement and wedding gifts, Final Four tickets, expensive dinners, indefinite no-interest loans, Golf trips, explicitly in exchange for political favors from someone holding public office — you’re saying that’s not corruption because it’s so commonplace?
No, I'm saying it's not corruption because it's not corruption. Not only is there nothing wrong with elected officials lobbying on behalf of their constituents, it's what they're there to do! It's the main function of their job. The Governor didn't take money in exchange for signing a piece of legislation. He didn't take cash in exchange for pardoning someone. He set up meetings and lobbied on behalf of one of his constituents.
Every penny that every politician has ever gotten, ever, has been in exchange for political favors. Do you honestly think people donate to candidates in the hopes that they'll get elected and then do absolutely nothing for them? Every dollar that Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders have gotten this year has been from people who want them to get elected so that they can enact policies that will directly impact their lives. You think the nearly $1.5 million that Planned Parenthood donated in 2014 was just out of the kindness of their heart? Of course not. They donated to candidates specifically so those candidates would support their agenda, are they corrupt?
Again, it's not corruption just because you don't like it.
Much as it was with Shelby, and Citizens United, and Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court can do more or less as it pleases. The damage they do, whether by pretending institutional white supremacy is now bygone, or that every form of political corruption somehow isn't, they do to the country. Eventually, when Jim Crow and the Help America Vote Act destroy people's faith in free and fair elections, what comes then will be the country's problem. When, one day, turning the nation's electoral process into a commodities market for faceless, transnational players to throw money at by the bagload works out to've been something of a mistake, the mess will not be theirs to clean up. Blindly doing your backers' bidding isn't governance, it isn't law, and it isn't policy. It's something more venal. The law is supposed to be codified wisdom, not dollar store hubris.
And once again it's the same old same old: Everything you disagree with is "destructive" and bad, and when things don't go your way, blame the institution. I mean, I honestly don't know why I expected anything different.
Where'd you get that from?
You agree with everything every authority does, or do you sometimes disagree? If you do disagree now and again, is that you simple-mindedly saying "bad?"
You said the corruption in this case isn't corruption. Maybe you meant to agree with the unanimous court that the corruption wasn't in exchange for official acts as such, but that for a given definition of official act another court could find that it was corruption again. I would prefer to think that, and the best of you, than you genuinely resent disagreeing with what this court has chosen to do.
Citizens United was properly decided on the merits of the case, too, but understood in the greater context of partisan gridlock and endemic political corruption, the court's judgement was lousy at best, and willfully corrupting no matter what they thought then. Thanks, Justice Kennedy.
Shelby is just out-and-out voter suppression. That may be destructive to the integrity of our republican form of government, and I may think that's too bad, but if that's your entire takeaway then that's on you, not me.
Bush v. Gore put the lie to the originalist's pretense of respect for states' rights. How many Supreme Court opinions go out of their way to state they mustn't ever be relied upon again in any future decision?
If you find yourself unsurprised at how idiotic your capsule version summary of this sort of criticism is, let me suggest that's more to do with the grotesque caricature of it you've formed than anything else.
Before you decide I must be, let me assure you I'm not calling you "destructive" or bad.
"YOU ALRIGHT! I GOT IT FROM QUOTING YOU!! Sorry, '80s throwback, I couldn't resist. Anyway, allow me to refresh your memory:
"The damage they do, whether by pretending..."
"...destroy people's faith in free and fair elections"
There's a difference between disagreeing with a ruling and criticizing the institution because they made a decision you disagree with. What you're doing is literally no different than the guy who claims the game is fixed, and blames the officials every time his team loses a game.
You don't like Citizens United? Fine, then go write the Twenty-Eighth Amendment abolishing money in politics and take it to the people. And why stop there? The mechanism exists in this country to change any law you don't like, any ruling you disagree with, hell, even the Constitution itself. The problem isn't that the system is rigged, or broken, it's that your side can't convince enough people to agree with you to effect change, and the really disgusting part of it is that you don't even think you should have to try.
That's just because you don't know me well enough, give it time.
That's absurd. For one thing, I don't know what you mean by my team but I suspect you don't mean "people that think blatant corruption is a bigger problem than runaway, out-of-control prosecution of corruption."
For another, we haven't even gotten into blatant corruption at the Supreme Court itself, if that's what you think this is about. If you'd like, let's do get into why Justices Scalia and Thomas refused for decades to make the financial disclosures legally required of every federal employee, and the conflicts of interest in the Thomas household whilst Mrs. Thomas collected millions of dollars playing musical chairs as a right wing political consultant. Especially thorny given her work for Citizens United even as her husband was sitting on Citizens United, apparently.
False dilemma. The system can be broken and rigged and corrupt beyond reform. For now.
As for what you're disgusted by around what you say is my side, I can only imagine how viscerally you would and will react to what comes when corruption like this runs its course. Are you so very sure what side you're on? Somehow I think it's not up to you.
Your response both illustrates and proves my point, so much better than I ever possibly could. I stand by my previous response.