Antonin Scalia’s bad law, bad history: How the Supreme Court legalized corruption

[unhappycamper]

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/20/antonin_scalias_bad_law_bad_history_how_the_supreme_court_legalized_corruption/



Citizens United sparked a political revolution that would have left the Founders revolted

Antonin Scalia’s bad law, bad history: How the Supreme Court legalized corruption
Zephyr Teachout
Saturday, Sep 20, 2014 09:30 AM EST

The gift of a framed print was at the heart of a little-noticed case that foreshadowed the Supreme Court’s political theory in Citizens United. The case came to court after a trade association, Sun Diamond Growers, gave Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy tickets to the 1993 U.S. Open Tennis Tournament worth $2,295, luggage worth $2,427 and $665 in meals, as well as the print and a crystal bowl worth $524.

The Supreme Court sided with Sun Diamond, against every court of appeals decision before 1999. It held that the government had to prove that the gift was given for a particular official act. Sun Diamond makes it nearly impossible to prove a violation of the gratuities act for any gift given before an official action. Sun Diamond effectively turned the bright-line gratuities statute into a more demanding bribery statute.

The opinion shows a lack of understanding of the corrosive power of gifts and subtle influence, and no appreciation for the need for clear rules, because of the difficulty of proving connections between gifts and acts. Instead the Court concluded that a clear rule would lead to “absurdities.” Justice Antonin Scalia,writing for the Court, found it incomprehensible that the statute could criminalize “a complimentary lunch for the Secretary of Agriculture” given by Sun Diamond, if he had matters before him that affected their work. He apparently never heard the adage, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”

Scalia outright rejected the argument that the statute criminalized the “buy(ing of) favor or generalized goodwill from an official who either has been, is, or may at some unknown, unspecified later time, be in a position to act favorably to the giver’s interests.” He rejected the claim that it criminalized presents “motivated, at least in part, by the recipient’s capacity to exercise governmental power or influence in the donor’s favor.” If you read the case as political theory, instead of statutory interpretation, the Court suggests that using money to influence power through gifts is both inevitable and not troubling. In so doing, it set the table for the Court’s major corruption decision in Citizens United.

[Demeter]

1. Scalia is guilty on all counts, but he had lots of help

Unless you take down all 5 of the Injustices, you do not accomplish anything like Justice.

[whereisjustice]

2. corporations *must* be required to prove that their pattern of giving is not proportional

to the power and influence of the recipient. Do they give similar gifts to low level government employees?

[Demeter]

3. Corporations must not "give" anything to anyone in government

They can pay taxes, and that would be a good thing. Influence buying is not.

[whereisjustice]

4. But for outstanding cases and case law, a higher standard for intent needs to be upheld.

Once a pattern of behavior of targeting only the most powerful and influential employees is revealed, the idea that these are simple gifts with no ulterior motive goes away. Scalia is worried that the right wing groups who pad his bank account will stop buying his favor.

[ewagner]

5. The absurdities started long ago..

Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad...
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/south-pac-rr-case.html

Holding: Corporations are People

Buckley vs Valeo...

Holding: Money = Free Speech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

It was just one STUPID assumption beyond that to make Citizens United a slam dunk