Critics charging Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton of curating a culture of corruption around the Clinton Foundation find an unlikely ally in former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. PLEASE TAKE NATIONAL POLLS AND PETITIONS. YOUR OPINION MATTERS Results Are Sent To Congress - Let Congress Hear Your Voice
PLEASE TAKE NATIONAL POLLS AND PETITIONS. YOUR OPINION MATTERS
Results Are Sent To Congress - Let Congress Hear Your Voice
Stevens, who served on the Court for 30 years before his retirement in 2010, authored the principle dissent in Citizens United v. FEC, the contentious Supreme Court decision which relaxed federal regulation of campaign expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and non-profits. He takes a capacious view of corruption in the opinion, lambasting the five justice majority for restricting their understanding of corruption to strict quid-pro-quo arrangements.
Section four of his dissent critique’s the majority’s understanding of the principles the high court had previously adopted for evaluating Congress’s interest in policing corruption. He writes the following:
Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf. Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority’s apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics.