Friday, August 29, 2014

Defining Corruption (Or How Tim Wu Could Become Governor of New York)

by Michael Dorf

A recent New Yorker article by Jill Lepore uses the Democratic primary challenge by Fordham law professor Zephyr Teachout to NY Governor Andrew Cuomo as an occasion to problematize the concept of political corruption. I generally think highly of Lepore but this article strikes me as misguided, for reasons I shall explain below. But first, some context.

Teachout and (my former colleague) Columbia law professor Tim Wu are challenging, respectively, Cuomo and his running mate Kathy Hochul. The Teachout/Wu campaign makes what is essentially a two-pronged pitch: (1) Cuomo and Hochul are too conservative for the Democratic Party nomination; and (2) there are serious concerns about Cuomo's integrity.

Given Cuomo's name recognition and generally favorabile (albeit slipping) ratings, Teachout is a long-shot for the gubernatorial nomination but Wu has a better chance at the second spot on the ballot. Hochul is not much better known than Wu and her record as a (former) member of Congress really is quite conservative for a NY Democrat (as argued in a "dossier" released by Teachout and Wu earlier this week). For that reason, yesterday the New York Times endorsed Wu's candidacy. On Wednesday, the Times declined to endorse either Cuomo or Teachout for Governor. Although critical of Cuomo's failure to address corruption in state government and laudatory of Teachout, the Times editorial board thought Teachout too green to merit the gubernatorial endorsement; Wu also lacks political experience, but the Times was willing to overlook that fact because the Lieutenant Governor's job carries substantially fewer responsibilities. Because primary voters vote for Governor and Lieutenant Governor on separate lines, there is thus a real chance that Cuomo will get the top spot and Wu the second spot.

And then, in the event that the simmering scandal involving Cuomo's disbanding of the Moreland Commission reaches a full boil (more about that below), it is possible to imagine Cuomo resigning or being removed from office, leaving Wu as Governor. Even absent such scenarios, the Teachout/Wu campaign has already exceeded expectations in challenging a governor who, but for the prospect of a Hillary Clinton candidacy, would probably be running for President. Both Teachout and Wu have been picking up endorsements from liberal groups, and of course, they have very strong backing among the all-important constituency of law professors.

Now, about that scandal. About a year ago, Governor Cuomo appointed the Moreland Commission to investigate public corruption. Then, when the commission started investigating people with ties to Cuomo, he killed the commission. It's possible the timing was coincidental. Cuomo says the commission's purpose was to generate support for a package of reform legislation, so that once the legislation was enacted (albeit minus strong public finance provisions), the commission was no longer needed. It's also possible that Cuomo's actions were perfectly legal--just as it's possible that Texas Governor Rick Perry's zeroing out of a budget for the office investigating his alleged corruption was perfectly legal. But in both instances the actions create at least some suspicion. And even if both Cuomo and Perry acted lawfully, that doesn't mean they can't be criticized for acting sleazily. Both actions call to mind President Nixon's firing (via Robert Bork) of Archibald Cox when Cox tried to do his job as special prosecutor. Nixon had the power to do it, but he rightly paid a steep political price.

The concerns about Cuomo's integrity are a good fit for Teachout's insurgent candidacy because her academic specialty is campaign finance and she has a forthcoming book about political corruption. In a nutshell, Teachout argues that the modern Supreme Court case law--which only allows restrictions on campaign finance that target quid pro quo corruption--uses a too-narrow definition of corruption. She points to the historical record of the Founding to argue that our political tradition once deployed a broader conception of corruption.

Lepore says that Teachout's historical case is of limited value. Just as Tea Party invocations of the Founding Fathers lack relevance today, she says, so does Teachout's mining of history for more progressive ends. I think that's a fair criticism, although one might understand Teachout to be making a point about hypocrisy: It's the Court's self-styled originalists who most strongly insist on what she argues is a conception of corruption that conflicts with the view held at the Founding.

Beyond the historical point, Lepore cites scholars like Yale Law School dean Robert Post and my Cornell Law School colleague Laura Underkuffler for the proposition that "corruption" is too mushy a concept to form the basis of a political program and to (more or less) defend the constitutional status quo given to us by the SCOTUS. I haven't yet read the Post book but I have read Underkuffler's and it does not make the sweeping claims that Lepore attributes to it. Underkuffler points to the troubled past of the concept of corruption not for the purpose of abandoning it but to show that it needs to be clarified. Perhaps Post does propose abandoning efforts to get at corruption, but if he does, then so much the worse for him.

Corruption is, in fact, a relatively straightforward idea. To corrupt an institution or practice is to damage it, to divert it from its purpose. To be sure, that requires some sense of what the purpose of the practice or institution is, but with respect to many circumstances, that is not difficult to say. For example, the purpose of a municipal police force is to protect the community as a whole, so a police officer who takes private money to provide special protection (while on duty) or worse, to turn a blind eye to crime, is corrupt.

The issue is likewise simple with respect to democracy, at least so far as the big picture is concerned. We may disagree about subtleties like when a representative should vote her conscience as against the wishes of her constituencies, but we generally agree that representative government in a system of one-person-one-vote is fundamentally about giving each person an equal say in decisions that affect him or her. In practice, we tolerate various deviations from the ideal. Political communities are represented in ways that diverge from one-person-one-vote (as in the U.S. Senate); people who care more about politics speak up and thus have their voices heard more; etc.

But no one can seriously argue that it is consistent with the purpose of 21st century democracy for elected officials to give a great deal of extra weight to the interests and wishes of wealthy people who support their election simply because of that support. That is a corruption of democracy, and a harmful corruption at that. A billionaire casino owner may be an expert in running profitable casinos but is not, in virtue of his casino experience or anything else, an expert in the Middle East. Inheriting and successfully operating a multi-billion dollar multinational industrial corporation does not make people into experts on climate science. And so when such people bend government policy to their will in virtue of their campaign contributions or independent expenditures, they corrupt politics in an obvious sense. Teachout and Wu have it right.


Shag from Brookline said...

The "SMELL TEST" may not be in the Constitution specifically but those interested in justice and fairness know it when they smell it.

Joe said...

Jill Lepore's caution regarding originalism is duly noted & I am concerned when people on either side over rely on that to promote a cause.* But, our history does have some value to teach us lessons and in that respect, it's helpful.

* For instance, as noted by JL, concerns about "dependence" factored into property requirements for voting.

Bob Hockett said...

What a great set of reflections, Mike - thanks so much. Two quick ancillary points:

First, as a friend of Zephyr's (and hence with at least one of my biases acknowledged), I must say that she's shown herself to be a remarkably quick study as a primary candidate, so much so that I'm left with every confidence that she'll likewise be great as a general electoral candidate and, most importantly, as a governor.

Second, and more in keeping with the main theme of the post, it's great to see our colleague Laura's book on corruption receiving some of the attention it deserves too. In case it's of interest to other readers, I thought I'd add in links both to the book and to our celebration of it here at Cornell, below.

Thanks again!



Justin said...

Old news.

Francis Sohn said...

If an Adelson or a Koch "corrupts" democracy by giving large donations to candidates to win favoritism (or draw out candidates that naturally favor their positions to run), what of the fact that every Adelson and every Koch only has one vote? In other words, how is it a "corruption" problem if everyone who votes for an Adelson-backed candidate or a Koch-backed candidate is aware of that fact, and votes for the candidate anyway?

I'd concede that there's a possibility of a low-information voter problem, and a whole host of other problems that would make what I'm suggesting a weak argument, but engaging with it in its strong form -- high information voters know that Adelson or Koch donate to Candidate X and vote for Candidate X, either in spite of or because of that donation -- I don't see the corruption problem. At the end of the day, people still have to go to the polls and vote, and it is their vote that elects a candidate, not a donation from a wealthy backer or the ad buy financed thereby.

Joe said...

it is their vote that elects a candidate, not a donation from a wealthy backer or the ad buy financed thereby

To win a campaign, you need money and resources plus an ability to counteract those of the other side.

People don't just vote. They vote in response to things that cost money -- ads etc. This includes the money that often is necessary to counteract opposition such as some unsubstantiated smear.

It is the unbalanced situation that is being addressed here, where having lots of money will skewer things, not having the best ideas or support from the voters as a whole. This includes limiting the people who have a real shot at winning.

Likewise, the people we actually vote for are "corrupted" because how the public officials act are influenced by donors. This is meant as satire:

Your bottom line really sounds naive. People don't just vote for whomever they want. They vote for candidates (write-ins rarely win) of tickets with backers etc. The fact they know the limited options have backers doesn't help much -- as set up, BOTH sides have them. As long as the system skewers toward money, it will be corrupted. Such is the argument.

Neil H. Buchanan said...

Another way to phrase Joe's (quite correct) response to the previous comment: "Yes, if you assume away the problem, then there is no problem."

Francis Sohn said...

Joe and Neil,

It strikes me that both of you are responding to the weak form of the argument, which I am willing to concede for present purposes - it's not worth it to me and not (IMHO) material for an internet comments section to unpack the assumptions behind it.

What I'm calling the strong form is not so much assuming away the problem as it is refusing to cut off one avenue of inquiry - namely, that it might be possible to avoid the corruption-of-money problem by some means other than doing away with "money in politics," as the talking heads would call it. It may be self-evident to you that such a world is impossible, but it is not to me. Even if it isn't the world we are in now, it is not naive to pose a possible alternative for discussion.

Michael C. Dorf said...

Two related thoughts inspired by the exchange between Francis, Joe and Neil:

1) There was some excitement a couple of election cycles ago that the growth of the internet would reduce the need for money in politics, because advertising on the internet is so much cheaper than via print, tv, and radio. That hasn't turned out to be true, partly because a large amount of campaign spending goes for other stuff (e.g., polling, get-out-the-vote efforts, etc.), and partly because traditional media buys continue to be important.

2) In light of 1) and the SCOTUS case law, I think that public funding is the only practical solution that doesn't rely on limiting contributions or expenditures. Thus far, it has been a very hard sell because public funding for elections must compete for scarce resources with other, more immediately pressing needs, such as funding for education, health care, and defense, not to mention tax relief. To my mind, this is a misperception. If done right, public funding would be a money-maker for the government, because it would lead to the election of officials who are independent of big-money interests, and thus would be willing to end government programs that merely pay rents to those interests.

Emma O'Connell said...

Your bottom line really sounds naive. People don't just vote for whomever they want. They vote for candidates (write-ins rarely win) of tickets with backers etc. The fact they know the limited options have backers doesn't help much -- as set up, BOTH sides have them. As long as the system skewers toward money, it will be corrupted. Such is the argument. 英雄联盟代练  elo boost  Fifa 15 Coins  League of legends boosting

喜洋洋 said...


aminos lahragui said...

Very awesome post , i am really impressed with it a lot

فوائد الزنجبيل

فوائد الرمان

فوائد الحلبة

فوائد البصل

فوائد الزعتر

فوائد زيت السمسم

علاج البواسير

فوائد اليانسون

فوائد الكركم

قصص جحا

صور يوم الجمعه

علامات الحمل

تعريف الحب

حياة البرزخ

فوائد الزبيب

amine lahragui said...

thanks so much for that great blog and thanks also for accepting my links thanks
طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه

aminos lahragui said...

thanks so much i like very so much your post
حلى الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورته حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق

lucas landry said...

Very awesome post , i am really impressed with it a lot

Arts de la table
recette tiramisu
gateau aux pommes
creme patissiere
creme anglaise
recette chantilly
recette gaufre
recette galette des rois

lucas landry said...

Very awesome post , i am really impressed with it a lot

Arts de la table
recette tiramisu
gateau aux pommes
creme patissiere
creme anglaise
recette chantilly
recette gaufre
recette galette des rois