# The Supreme Court may be considering the legalization of bribery **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 4, 2016, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877 "2016-05-04T12:45:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/81 "2016-05-07T02:51:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK. Instead of dancing around and citing commentary about the decision, please cite the specific part of the decision that you claim is “money = speech”. Since you seem to think it’s so obvious, this should be easy for your to do. The inference is bloody obvious for the reasons I cited, and is why the phrase appears in countless analyses of the case and its repercussions. Resorting to literalism instead of comprehension is not generally a productive strategy. If I’m not mistaken, Scalia’s contribution to the CU ruling never even used the word “money” one single time, but regardless, his rationale for the ruling was crystal clear, and plainly re-iterated by the man himself. I hate making people watch videos but in this case it serves a purpose to get it directly from the horse’s mouth. I give you the late Antonin Scalia discussing _Citizens United_ in a Piers Morgan interview, with the following quotable exchange beginning at around the 49-second mark: SCALIA: **You can’t separate speech from the money that facilitates the speech.** MORGAN: Can’t you? SCALIA: It’s utterly impossible. Money and speech – inseparable and forever united as one. So said Antonin Scalia in defense of his ruling on _Citizens United_. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/82 "2016-05-07T03:35:37Z")
Not seated on the bench, therefore not speaking _ex catheter_. Nor wearing the sacred rayon Robes of Power. Hence, it is _stark staring decisis_, which you’ve had the gall to divide in three parts! ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/83 "2016-05-07T04:26:38Z")
It’s true he wasn’t wearing a robe in the video, but he might have been speaking with catheters stuck in various orifices and we’d never know. So I say we reserve judgment. And I always thought that _stare decisis_ was the legal term for what everyone did when they noticed that one of those justices wasn’t wearing anything under their robe. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/84 "2016-05-07T11:54:33Z")
Part that confuses me is the shift of emphasis to William’s. Seems to me the issue is more like McDonnell’s _acceptance_ of gifts rather than William’s motivations for the giving. How would William’s rights even enter into the question? If it were illegal for McDonnell to accept gifts from his good buddy, does that necessarily mean it were illegal for Williams to offer them? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/85 "2016-05-07T16:37:34Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > CU didn’t say money is speech. It didn’t discuss the issue because that was settled 40 years ago in Buckley v. Valeo. That decision also didn’t say money is speech. It said a restriction on spending on speech is, like any other restriction designed to limit speech, unconstitutional. > > If it weren’t, then a limit on spending on other rights could be constitutional too. The government could ban the sale of Bibles, as long as it allows possession of them. Or it could ban women from paying for abortions - they’d only have a right to an abortion when a doctor provides it for free. And other such absurd conclusions. > > You can’t limit money spent on speech. Anyone can have as much speech as they want, including speech obtained by spending money. Get over it. You are being pedantic. _Buckley v. Valeo_ did indeed say that anyone can spend _their own money_, to their heart’s content, messaging, and _Citizens United_ basically reaffirmed that. What was _not_ ruled unconstitutional was restrictions on how much money can be given to someone else to support that person/party’s messaging. Some people perceive money given to a candidate/official as a form of speech: “_I support that person’s ideology, so I should be able to support them financially in order to further the common cause we share_.” Some view that kind of expression of support as something that should be considered speech protected by the First; others disagree (especially if it can be seen as unduly influencing resultant policy). _Citizens United_ ruled that an organization can spend as much as it wants on messaging that favors a candidate (or reviles one). Some feel that indirect support of a candidate is equivalent to contributing to their campaign (which SCotUS has ruled can be restricted constitutionally) while other view it as protected speech. I have a hard time seeing it as a simple B&W question. Giving money to a candidate or to a seated official has the same net effect, at least where large amounts are involved: the donor can expect some degree of access/influence for their largess. In that respect, there is a practical similarity between the two cases compared in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/86 "2016-05-07T17:12:02Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > SCALIA: **You can’t separate speech from the money that facilitates the speech.** > > MORGAN: Can’t you? > > SCALIA: It’s utterly impossible. > > Money and speech – inseparable and forever united as one. So said Antonin Scalia in defense of his ruling on _Citizens United_. Yes. And this is not even close to saying “money IS speech.” You may not limit money spent on speech. Period. That principle is solid. Stop trying to turn it into a straw man. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/87 "2016-05-07T17:18:41Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > You are being pedantic. _Buckley v. Valeo_ did indeed say that anyone can spend _their own money_, to their heart’s content, messaging, and _Citizens United_ basically reaffirmed that. What was _not_ ruled unconstitutional was restrictions on how much money can be given to someone else to support that person/party’s messaging. I agree completely. I don’t see how you think I don’t. CU was not about donations to candidates. As long as you or anyone else doesn’t confuse donations to Super PACs with donations to candidates, of course. CU affirmed the right to give as much as you want to someone else, other than a candidate, to use for speech. [ > [@](#): > > I]Citizens United\* ruled that an organization can spend as much as it wants on messaging that favors a candidate (or reviles one). Some feel that indirect support of a candidate is equivalent to contributing to their campaign (which SCotUS has ruled can be restricted constitutionally) while other view it as protected speech. I have a hard time seeing it as a simple B&W question. Of course it’s B&W, because if spending money on your own speech could be considered a donation, then speech NOT involving money could also be considered a donation, subject to limits, and that’s obviously absurd. > [@](#): > > Giving money to a candidate or to a seated official has the same net effect, at least where large amounts are involved: the donor can expect some degree of access/influence for their largess. In that respect, there is a practical similarity between the two cases compared in the OP. No, that is not always true, but so what? Is everything done for a candidate that results in benefits for the person doing it corrupt? If I volunteer for a candidate for mayor who promises to fix potholes in the street and he wins and fixes the potholes, is that corruption or bribery? Your logic would lead to the criminalization of all politics. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/88 "2016-05-07T17:19:45Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Part that confuses me is the shift of emphasis to William’s. Seems to me the issue is more like McDonnell’s _acceptance_ of gifts rather than William’s motivations for the giving. How would William’s rights even enter into the question? > > If it were illegal for McDonnell to accept gifts from his good buddy, does that necessarily mean it were illegal for Williams to offer them? Yes, but I believe Williams testified against McDonnell in exchange for immunity or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/89 "2016-05-07T17:22:56Z")
The government can ban paying doctors for abortions, because money isn’t abortion! The government can ban the selling of bibles, because money isn’t religion! The government can ban newspapers from paying reports or buying paper and ink, because money isn’t the press! The government can ban groups that protest the Citizens United decision from spending money on ads and websites, because money isn’t speech! The government can ban me from paying my ISP to post here, because…oh, no, I’ve gone too far with the reductio ad absurdum thing. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/90 "2016-05-07T17:46:59Z")
Our great legal expert is now only capable of non sequiturs. Observe that he responds to this > [@septimus](#): > > Please note that I am NOT asking whether SCOTUS has the power or right to legalize bribery. AFAIK they can make it legal for Officers of the Court to parade naked down Main Street while raping baby goats. Nor am I waiting for some hyper-pedant to “correct” the word _bribery_ to be _apparent bribery_. > > **I’m asking whether those so proud of the decision in _Citizens United v Actual Citizens_ think that extending “free speech” to include bribery _is wise public policy_.** with this > [@Bricker](#): > > Oh, good – another chance for septimus to display his finely honed legal analytical skills. And his indignation! He might not exactly know the “law,” but by gosh, he has Morals! And bribery is Bad! Because of Morals! > > Also, Republicans! IANAL; have never pretended to be on; if I were one I hope I’d not be a pedantic dolt like some. And I specifically asked, not about the law, but about\*\*\* wise public policy\*\*\*. And mentioned no party affiliation in OP. **Brickhead** : Is English even your first language? But … Bribery _is_ bad. It _is_ immoral for public servants to accept large gifts to use their influence. It would be nice to imagine a country where bribery laws did not need to be finely crafted — i.e. where Governors weren’t criminals — but perhaps **Brickhead** ’s confusion and hypocrisy illustrate why such a country of _ **Law** _ is not the country of _ **Lawyers** _ that we’re stuck with. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/91 "2016-05-07T17:58:11Z")
> [@](#): > > …oh, no, I’ve gone too far with the reductio ad absurdum thing. Some of our Founders were revolutionary idealists, dedicated to equality under the law. Others… businessmen and landowners, mostly…were concerned that political power should rest in sober and responsible hands. Businessmen and landowners, mostly. Guess who won! In America, money is political power. Either that is just as it should be, or it needs fixing. I lean towards the latter. Perhaps “lean” is not strong enough a word… ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/92 "2016-05-07T18:01:08Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yes. And this is not even close to saying “money IS speech.” Your laughable extremism and hopeless intransigence on this issue has been duly noted before, but it’s on spectacular display here. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > You may not limit money spent on speech. Period. That principle is solid. Stop trying to turn it into a straw man. That principle is “solid” according to four far-right lunatics and one libertarian on the Supreme Court in the recent spate of decisions, staunchly and consistently opposed by the progressives in every single case. With one of those lunatics now deceased, it’s doubtful than anything so flagrant would pass today. The McDonnell case will be an interesting test. I would be happy for **Bricker** to be proved right and and the ruling to be a narrow one on the jury instruction question, or else perhaps the court will be tied in a stalemate. It appears to be your position that progressive justices have no understanding of the Constitution, which makes exactly as much sense as the rest of your blather. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > The government can ban groups that protest the Citizens United decision from spending money on ads and websites, because money isn’t speech! So you’re saying the government _ **cannot** _ ban dissenting ads against _Citizens United_, because money _ **is** _ speech after all. Perhaps you shouldn’t post while intoxicated. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/93 "2016-05-07T18:05:14Z")
I believe he was attempting a form of ironic dissonance, often called “sarcasm”. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/94 "2016-05-07T18:22:17Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Giving money to a candidate or to a seated official has the same net effect, at least where large amounts are involved: the donor can expect some degree of access/influence for their largess. In that respect, there is a practical similarity between the two cases compared in the OP. Toobin certainly thinks so, but much depends on what the Court considers the central issue of the case. And I would venture that there’s a lot more at stake than the donor expecting “some degree of access/influence”. The lunatic wing of the Court has deemed – and may yet deem again here – that there is no corruption unless a definite and specific _quid pro quo_ can be established between the monetary contribution and some official action, to a degree that in practice is almost impossible to establish. Basically to satisfy their criteria, you’d need to enact some implausible melodrama where an Evil Tycoon offers gold to a politician if the politician will enact some malignant legislation, and the politician has to agree to take the gold and enact the legislation, with both of them shouting into a tape recorder. Anything short of that and by God, it’s just “money” and “speech” which, as Scalia so succinctly pointed out, are supposed by these lunatics to be completely inseparable. The practical matter is that national political campaigns in America cost billions of dollars, and billions more are spent on issue advocacy through every imaginable means of communication, and on direct political lobbying. These obscene amounts of money are spent by corporations and the wealthy hugely out of proportion to their numbers and their corresponding democratically constituted rights of political determination. Here’s the real _quid pro quo_: the resultant political system caters overwhelmingly to its benefactors. And the public mindset is insidiously distorted on factual matters like health care policy and climate change, and fiscal matters like taxation and social policies. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/95 "2016-05-07T18:23:58Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I believe he was attempting a form of ironic dissonance, often called “sarcasm”. It may have been an attempt at sarcasm, but what it actually was, was incoherent. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/96 "2016-05-07T20:40:09Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I give you the late Antonin Scalia discussing _Citizens United_ in a Piers Morgan interview, with the following quotable exchange beginning at around the 49-second mark: > SCALIA: **You can’t separate speech from the money that facilitates the speech.** > > MORGAN: Can’t you? > > SCALIA: It’s utterly impossible. > > Money and speech – inseparable and forever united as one. So said Antonin Scalia in defense of his ruling on _Citizens United_. > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yes. And this is not even close to saying “money IS speech.” > > You may not limit money spent on speech. Period. That principle is solid. Stop trying to turn it into a straw man. A Hypothetical Court: “The government can’t limit the amount of money newspapers spend on ink in order to limit what newspapers print.” WOLFPUP: Ink and speech – inseparable and forever united as one. Ink is speech! Ink is speech! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/97 "2016-05-07T21:08:09Z")
**Wolfpup** : Do you think that any of the current SCOTUS justices would uphold a law, passed by Congress, that limited the amount money individuals could spend on advocating for political causes to $1,000? Would that decision mean that “money is speech” and if not, why not? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/98 "2016-05-07T21:38:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A Hypothetical Court: “The government can’t limit the amount of money newspapers spend on ink in order to limit what newspapers print.” > > WOLFPUP: Ink and speech – inseparable and forever united as one. Ink is speech! Ink is speech! This would be not just a straw man, but one so poorly constructed that the entire argument teeters on the brink of incoherence. If we lived in a world where the only possible means of mass communication was the printed media – newspapers, books, and magazines and nothing else – and if a particular small elite controlled access to most of the ink and paper and used that to ensure that their political views were persistently dominant, then you would have a valid analogy. In that situation ink and paper really does equate to speech, and speech of a particularly influential kind, and one might wish the government to step in and enact measures to ensure that, in support of a functional democracy, all views were fairly heard, not just those of the ink oligopoly. And you might have the usual gang of libertarian pinheads demanding that the government not interfere with the Natural Order of Things, and also – the libertarians’ constant fervent hope – would the government please go away and remember to turn off the lights on the way out. Did Scalia address any questions of any specific enabling technology like in your ridiculous fabrication? Of course not, he was referring to money as a universal enabler of all speech – that is, all speech of the kind that matters politically and sways the direction of democracies, excepting only private conversations and shouting on street corners, which tends not to have much effect. In this critically important context, money is speech. Absolutely, unequivocally, and forever united as one. Scalia at least admitted it. That’s why it matters to democracy, and why so many books and studies show American democracy to be failing to carry out its primary mission of serving the best interests of the people. Because money is not allocated according to democratic principles, but the nature and motivations of our government should be. Because, you know, that’s what democracy **is**! And you don’t do your own credibility any favors by quoting **lance strongarm** , who has long since left the realm of rationality and gone off the deep end on this issue. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Wolfpup** : Do you think that any of the current SCOTUS justices would uphold a law, passed by Congress, that limited the amount money individuals could spend on advocating for political causes to $1,000? Would that decision mean that “money is speech” and if not, why not? The question is fundamentally about where one draws restrictive lines, much as you said yourself earlier. Very broad prohibitions on “advocating anything, at any time” are obviously not going to fly. You’re never going to completely remove the influence of money in politics because money is fundamentally about shaping your environment, in every sense of the term. But this is worlds removed from reasonable restrictions on excessive political influence, restrictions that restore a more balanced political dialog and give ordinary people some hope and faith that governments might actually look after their interests instead of being inevitable servants of a moneyed plutocracy. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/99 "2016-05-07T22:02:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Wolfpup** : Do you think that any of the current SCOTUS justices would uphold a law, passed by Congress, that limited the amount money individuals could spend on advocating for political causes to $1,000? Would that decision mean that “money is speech” and if not, why not? The fundamental issue with “money is speech” is that some folks have ready access to more of it than do others. If _everyone_ is constrained to a fixed amount, and no one may borrow someone else’s unused credit, that is more like equitable freedom of speech than a case where billionaires have greater access to the soap box just by buying it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2016, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/100 "2016-05-07T22:11:48Z")
Some might question if that formula does not overvalue speech, by placing it on the same holy plane as money. After all, money is not so weak as to need the protection of an amendment, it can take care of itself just fine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877.md?page=6)