Are laws against corruption unconstitutional?

I think many have a knee jerk reaction that it is wrong aside from normal (whatever that means) political donations.

Yet the courts have long recognized buying attention via donation is perfectly fine. And that the purpose of government is legislation in response to demands of the people. Which is the response of an elected official who paid extra attention to a large donor, and which is true corruption?
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
I think many have a knee jerk reaction that it is wrong aside from normal (whatever that means) political donations.

Yet the courts have long recognized buying attention via donation is perfectly fine. And that the purpose of government is legislation in response to demands of the people. Which is the response of an elected official who paid extra attention to a large donor, and which is true corruption?
Click to expand...

There is a distinction also between giving the politicians campaign money vs giving the politician money/gifts.
 
I note the article is quick to note very old laws against gifts. This is no doubt to counter the notion the practice is long accepted as a natural part of how politics works. Someone did their homework.
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
Sounds more like the latter than the former- based solely on the quote in the OP.

What, is it illegal for me to pay the Governor to mow my lawn? Or act as a spokesman for my supplement?

Does the state have any law against the gov taking on an outside job?

To the OP- where was the corruption?
Click to expand...

The corruption is the governor using the resources of state universities to "research" the product and to produce studies that made the product look good.
 
Ziggurat said:
That is not the only possible alternative. There must be a limiting principle, but there is more than one way we can construct what that limiting principle is. For example, we could outlaw gifts to politicians above some set dollar value, regardless of what the gift was for. That has a clear limiting principle: it doesn't apply to gifts below that value.
Click to expand...

Or we could take private money out of politics once and for all via public financing, mandatory ad time on tv/radio, etc.
 
casebro said:
Sounds more like the latter than the former- based solely on the quote in the OP.

What, is it illegal for me to pay the Governor to mow my lawn? Or act as a spokesman for my supplement?
Does the state have any law against the gov taking on an outside job?

To the OP- where was the corruption?
Click to expand...

If that isn't illegal, it should be. It is here. In public office, you do public duty, and using the status of the office for direct financial gain whilst in office is just about the definition of corruption.
 
MikeG said:
If that isn't illegal, it should be. It is here. In public office, you do public duty, and using the status of the office for direct financial gain whilst in office is just about the definition of corruption.
Click to expand...
Using the status of your office? Or using the power of your office?

And what he did already is illegal. That's not the question. The question is whether the laws that make it illegal are unconstitutionally infringing on his rights as a free person.
 
theprestige said:
Using the status of your office? Or using the power of your office?

And what he did already is illegal. That's not the question. The question is whether the laws that make it illegal are unconstitutionally infringing on his rights as a free person.
Click to expand...

Which is basically saying he's claiming the Constitutional right to commit crime...which is absurd on the face of it and should have been dismissed with prejudice at the time he made it.
 
Virginia has very loose rules on corruption, and neither party has much desire to tighten them. They made a token effort after McDonnell was convicted, but it's full of loopholes. McDonnell had to really work to violate the laws as they stood.

The trial was a real sideshow as the governor blamed his wife (now ex-wife) for everything and her former chief of staff called her a "nutbag" on the witness stand. But the couple had gotten into serious debt problems due to bad real estate investments and took a ton of "loans" and gifts in exchange for using the governor's office to promote a quack medicine. That last part often got lost. They were not just promoting the business of a supporter, they were promoting some garbage "alternative" medicine.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Which is basically saying he's claiming the Constitutional right to commit crime...which is absurd on the face of it and should have been dismissed with prejudice at the time he made it.
Click to expand...

Yet people have been found to have a constitutional right to commit a crime when the crime was a constitutionally protected act made illegal by an unconstitutional law.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Or we could take private money out of politics once and for all via public financing, mandatory ad time on tv/radio, etc.
Click to expand...

You think that would take money out of politics? No. At best, it would remove only one avenue for money to enter politics. Other avenues would remain, and those other avenues are not preferable. The only way to remove money from politics is to remove politics from money.
 
Ziggurat said:
You think that would take money out of politics? No. At best, it would remove only one avenue for money to enter politics. Other avenues would remain, and those other avenues are not preferable. The only way to remove money from politics is to remove politics from money.
Click to expand...

Would you agree that removing one avenue would be better than maintaining it?
 
Argumemnon said:
Would you agree that removing one avenue would be better than maintaining it?
Click to expand...

No, I would not agree. Money spent on speech is the least corrupting method by which money can affect politics. Why would I want to divert money from the least-corrupting avenue into more corrupting avenues?
 
Much advertising is on the Internet nowadays, too, and the government cannot use the sophistry of limited frequencies to require speech of outlets.
 
I'm not a fan of laws against accepting a nice dinner from someone. At the end of the day, someone who can get a politician to come to dinner already has influence. Steak, lobster, and a bottle of Scotch are unlikely to change a politician's position on anything.

But expensive watches? Picking up 5-digit personal catering tabs? Huge personal loans? Not only is the money significant enough to corrupt the politician (and thus the system) but the way in which it's being transferred indicates consciousness of guilt.

**** anyone who says that should be legal.
 
Actually I would be fine with it...if it was reported with reporting requirements.

The legal issue is whether their state constitution allows the legislature to make illegal the free exercise of the constitutionally-granted and defined power of another branch. Yes it is rotten, highly suspicious behavior. But the place to deal with it is the voters at the next election.

I don't know the dividing line between whatever and conscious, deliberate tit for tat.
 
Beerina said:
Actually I would be fine with it...if it was reported with reporting requirements.

The legal issue is whether their state constitution allows the legislature to make illegal the free exercise of the constitutionally-granted and defined power of another branch.
Click to expand...

What power would that be, exactly? Is this the governor exercising the power of the executive branch? Or is it a private individual exercising their rights to free speech and free association?
 
theprestige said:
What power would that be, exactly? Is this the governor exercising the power of the executive branch? Or is it a private individual exercising their rights to free speech and free association?
Click to expand...

Even direct bribery, the illegality is on the bribery, not on the exercise of, say, the veto itself, which may be made for any reason. To do otherwise allows the legislature to restrict the executive's power of veto. This came into greater focus in the Texas case, where mere political arm twisting was involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom