A First Amendment Right to Corrupt Your Politician

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
E. Temchenko
{"title":"A First Amendment Right to Corrupt Your Politician","authors":"E. Temchenko","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/x98u2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Are you dealing with state or federal agencies, to no avail? Do you need someone on top to advocate for you? You may have a right to buy your Governor’s help. It is wellestablished that the Constitution protects the right of political association, which includes contributions to candidates in return for ingra-tiation and access. Nonetheless, courts and scholars have generally limited this right to contributions to campaigns for public office. After McDonnell v. United States, that may change. Reading the McDonnell opinion in light of McCutch-eon, this Note and other commentators conclude that the Su-preme Court may have inadvertently created a First Amendment right to buy a politician’s influence, favor, and advocacy even outside the campaign finance setting. Undoubtedly, to the general public this must appear as nothing other than a First Amendment right to bribery. Yet this right has already been articulated in courts and has the support of at least one U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge. These findings suggest that Congress may no longer be able to criminalize certain types of corruption. Some courts have begun to reverse convictions and invalidate parts of existing anti-corruption statutes. While the impact of the First Amendment right remains unclear, the dismantling of the United States’ anti-corruption framework may already have begun. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466 R I. MCDONNELL V. UNITED STATES: SUPREME COURT DEFINES THE BRIBERY STATUTE’S “OFFICIAL ACT” REQUIREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470 R","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"465-499"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cornell Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/x98u2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Are you dealing with state or federal agencies, to no avail? Do you need someone on top to advocate for you? You may have a right to buy your Governor’s help. It is wellestablished that the Constitution protects the right of political association, which includes contributions to candidates in return for ingra-tiation and access. Nonetheless, courts and scholars have generally limited this right to contributions to campaigns for public office. After McDonnell v. United States, that may change. Reading the McDonnell opinion in light of McCutch-eon, this Note and other commentators conclude that the Su-preme Court may have inadvertently created a First Amendment right to buy a politician’s influence, favor, and advocacy even outside the campaign finance setting. Undoubtedly, to the general public this must appear as nothing other than a First Amendment right to bribery. Yet this right has already been articulated in courts and has the support of at least one U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge. These findings suggest that Congress may no longer be able to criminalize certain types of corruption. Some courts have begun to reverse convictions and invalidate parts of existing anti-corruption statutes. While the impact of the First Amendment right remains unclear, the dismantling of the United States’ anti-corruption framework may already have begun. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466 R I. MCDONNELL V. UNITED STATES: SUPREME COURT DEFINES THE BRIBERY STATUTE’S “OFFICIAL ACT” REQUIREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470 R
第一修正案赋予你腐化政客的权利
你是在和州或联邦机构打交道,却毫无用处吗?你需要有人在上面为你辩护吗?你也许有权收买总督的帮助。众所周知,《宪法》保护政治结社的权利,其中包括向候选人提供捐款,以换取讨好和进入。尽管如此,法院和学者通常将这项权利限制在为公职竞选捐款的范围内。在麦克唐纳诉美国案之后,这种情况可能会改变。根据McCutch-eon的观点来解读McDonnell的意见,本刊和其他评论员得出结论,最高法院可能无意中创造了第一修正案赋予的权利,即在竞选财务环境之外购买政治家的影响力、支持和宣传。毫无疑问,对公众来说,这无非是第一修正案赋予的贿赂权。然而,这项权利已经在法庭上得到了明确表述,并得到了至少一名美国巡回上诉法院法官的支持。这些发现表明,国会可能不再能够将某些类型的腐败定为刑事犯罪。一些法院已经开始推翻定罪,并使现有反腐败法规的部分内容无效。虽然第一修正案权利的影响尚不清楚,但美国反腐败框架的瓦解可能已经开始。介绍 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .466 r i . McDonnell诉美国:最高法院定义贿赂法的“官方行为”要求. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .470 R
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1915, the Cornell Law Review is a student-run and student-edited journal that strives to publish novel scholarship that will have an immediate and lasting impact on the legal community. The Cornell Law Review publishes six issues annually consisting of articles, essays, book reviews, and student notes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信