Reflection on Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United by Zephyr Teachout

    Though difficult to read at times, Corruption in America  outlines the legal definition of "corruption" from the inception of America to present (published in 2014). At the outset of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the idea of civic duty was the strongest driving force behind every word in our founding documents. When Benjamin Franklin was gifted a box encrusted with diamonds and a portrait of the King by Louis XVI, it raised ethical questions accompanied by a diplomat's job - would a valuable gift from a foreign entity corrupt a decision maker's mind? After several other diplomats received the same 'snuff' boxes from France, a new question was raised: Is America just dramatic for its sensitivity to potential corruption? At the time, gift giving was commonplace in European politics but this kind of cultural dissonance initially made for awkward political interaction between a nascent America and the rest of the world (namely Europe). Through a series of forfeiting the snuff boxes to Congress and asking for permission before accepting any gifts, this was sorted out.
    Teachout went through the history of potentially corrupt situations faced by the fathers of our Constitution. From snuff boxes in our early years to the 1790s Yazoo land scandal with realtors buying half the Georgia legislature and it being 'legal' under the Supreme Court, the definition of "corruption" was elusive and unworthy of a law which would make it explicitly illegal.
    Cases like Buckley v. Valeo which deemed campaign spending limits unconstitutional, Citizens United which ruled that corporations are people and thus limits on corporate campaign contributions are unconstitutional, and the nail in the coffin of election spending regulation, McCutcheon v FEC which held that there can be no limits on party or candidate committee contributions by an individual all brought us to where we are today. Politicians spend 40-70% of their time fundraising; of course those who spend more on the campaign will hold greater weight in the politician's decisions. It seems the obvious solution would be to take money out of the process, or at least greatly reduce its clout, but it is no longer legal to institutionalize those regulations.
    It is argued that in the modern day, the best way to understand how money can corrupt politics is to have run for office at some level, but SCOTUS Justices are removed from that process now. Ironically, the Supreme Court plays a bigger and bigger role in dictating the law of the land without having lived experience in the law. While it is nice that the members of the Supreme Court believe that legislators would not be influenced by money or personal relations, an apolitical view of politics just doesn't hold water. It instead leads to money being speech and corruption being difficult to legally prove even though most Americans perceive politicians as somewhat corrupt, with valid reasoning.
    All this demonstrates that what was once an intentionally broad definition driven by a deeply personal sense of civic duty and ethics became narrowly defined and largely powerless. The author explains that "corruption" evolved from any small thing that could influence decisions in our government to being only the most obvious quid pro quo- that there must be an explicit exchange of influence/money for a bill or tangible benefit.
    This book fostered a lot of pessimism in government for me, something I once loved. Although the Supreme Court may be far removed from the political process and Americans, I would like to think that our democracy still exists in a (somewhat) pure form in local government and that is downright beautiful.

Book recommendation from my sister, Rachel. Thank you!