Bought Justice and the Supreme Court by Dylan Ratigan

[diane in sf]

Very interesting article examining the Olin Foundation and Chicago School's corrupting influence on the operation of the Supreme Court.

"...The most remarkable aspects of the court's decision-making in Citizens United is the Court's attitude towards corruption. The traditional rationale behind campaign finance restrictions is that campaign money can corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. The court found that, unless there was an explicit quid pro quo and donations were coordinated with candidates, money was not a corrupting force. If there ever were a rationale to restrict free speech in the form of campaign spending, corruption was it. But since campaign money doesn't corrupt, the Court found, the Constitution prohibits the government from regulating money in politics.

...How did the Court come to have such odd ideas on corruption?

This goes back to the subtlety of money in our politics, and in particular, the purchase of ideas. In the 1970s, a think tank called the John Olin Foundation began promoting something called law and economics, a school of thought started at the University of Chicago that linked the incentive-based thinking of economics to legal rule-making. At the time, the ideas that led to the massive deregulatory impulses of the next three decades were first taking shape; the law and economics school was simply the legal offshoot of this well-funded pro-corporate trend. This new legal theory asserted that traditional legal concepts like equity and fairness were not as important as efficiency and incentives. And it expanded its influence quickly over law schools and courts very quickly through, well, gobs of money. According to conservative journalist John Miller, "the foundation sank more than $68 million into law and economics, and because of this it had a big impact on legal scholarship, the training of lawyers, and judicial behavior.

...what we need is a new legal theory for the 99%, a new way of looking at corruption. The law and economics school takes a limited approach to the question of justice, but there are seeds of new ways of thinking. Another way of modeling the problem has been pioneered by law professor Zephyr Teachout, who argues there is a structural anti-corruption principle embedded in the Constitution itself in the form of a separation-of-powers. She explores how the founders drafted the Constitution as a response to corruption, and argues that judges need to consider questions of corruption as a Constitutional principle. Other young scholars are remaking our intellectual landscape - telecommunications and cyberdefense specialist Marvin Ammori argues that the First Amendment is a design principle. Public space, he says, is essential for the First Amendment to operate, and judges need to consider that concept. As we see protesters camped out around the country and tussling with public officials over how they can showcase grievances, this seems far more important than more mundane First Amendment questions that typically deal with questions of flag-burning."



http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/8256-bought-justice-and-the-supreme-court

[wilt the stilt]

1. Money doesn't corrupt?

once again we see why ideologues should not be allowed position of power. When you see ideology trump common sense then you know that this person has lost the ability for critical thinking. Greed is one of the 7 deadly sins and money is a corrupting influence. Always has been and always will be.

[saras]

2. money allows you to buy the consumer goods your community deems appropriate. The rest is corruption

[snot]

3. Rec'ing back up to 5.

[starroute]

4. "Justice" might turn out to be one of the root demands of OWS

The Pledge of Allegiance concludes with the ringing words "liberty and justice for all," but although our country appears to be fixated on liberty, nobody these days talks much about justice or even seems to have much notion of what it means.

That's partly because there are a million different definitions of justice, and none of them is completely clear. But most of them cluster around the notion of balance -- either maintaining a balance within society, doing things in an evenhanded manner, or restoring a balance that has been lost through crime or neglect. Justice is depicted with a scale for that reason -- and also with a blindfold, just to drive home the point of absolute impartiality.

And balance is certainly what's lacking in society today. Everything is tilted in favor of the rich and against the poor. Our elections are out of balance, our economy is out of balance, our environment is out of balance, and our notions of domestic security are radically out of balance. We fight unjust wars and withhold justice from prisoners.

It wouldn't cure everything, but a strong dose of justice could go a long way towards fixing what ails us.