The article written by Jeffrey Toobin reflects on the possibility of another hit to campaign and finance reform worse than Citizens United that could make corruption legal, at least corruption by a different name. The article talks about the Supreme Court hearing a case from former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell amidst charges of corruption and bribery. A Richmond business man gave over 100,000 dollars to the governor and his wife in the guise of campaign contributions, and although the decision has not yet been made, it looks as though Governor McDonnell will likely get off without charges. The lawyer for McDonnell argues that bribery and corruption only apply if the governor acted on these contributions in a formal way, which according to the lawyer, he did not. Finally the article goes on to say how the deregulation of corruption is all but here. 
This article reflects the the Judicial portion of Unit 4 well due to the fact that it revolves around the workings of Article III judges and the highest court in America. The judges are using the precedent set forth by the Citizens United case in order to allow Governor McDonnell the ability to petition the court. It seems to me that standing contributions to any politician is corruption, no matter what the purpose. While Citizens United let anyone get someone elected, paying them in office seems to be going over the limit, even that politician doesn’t act “formally” on the payments. The courts are not really using judicial review because there is no law which they are declaring unconstitutional. It seems as though they are attempting to be judicial activists and are ignoring the doctrine of the political question. The Supreme Court should not have to rule on a case that could make buying a politician legal. No matter what the justices decide, it will not be a unanimous decision.
Link to Articlehttp://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-supreme-court-gets-ready-to-legalize-corruption:
No comments:
Post a Comment