Could America Become a Banana Republic?

The Supreme Court’s recent McCutcheon ruling paves the way for a new era of political corruption in the U.S.

A picture shows bananas on sale at a market in London on February 23, 2014. According to the British Fairtrade organization the UK consumes over five billion bananas each year. The price of a banana in the UK has almost halved due to supermarket pricing wars, they say. The organisation has started in London on February 24, 2014 a campaign to try to end this war that causes producers in mostly Latin American countries to sell bananas at a price that can be even below production cost, with dire economic consequences for those farmers.
National Journal
Norm Ornstein
April 16, 2014, 3:31 p.m.

Last week, I was in Prague for the third an­nu­al World For­um on Gov­ernance, which brings to­geth­er people from coun­tries around the world, in­clud­ing East­ern and Cent­ral Europe, Rus­sia, China, Ukraine, Tur­key, Egypt, South Africa, In­dia, and Bolivia in search of best gov­ern­ing prac­tices.

One high­light of the for­um — which I co­dir­ect with Tom Mann of Brook­ings and Steph­en Dav­is of Brook­ings and Har­vard Law School — was a con­ver­sa­tion with Pietro Grasso, pres­id­ent of the Itali­an Sen­ate. Grasso is best known as the long­time chief of the anti-Mafia squad, who sur­vived death threats and ac­tu­al as­sas­sin­a­tion at­tempts to bring down a series of Mafia lead­ers and hol­low out the or­gan­iz­a­tion. He gave a stir­ring talk on the in­ter­na­tion­al nature of cor­rup­tion, but his ad­vice to those as­sembled also em­phas­ized the im­port­ance of clean­ing up cam­paign fin­ance.

Cor­rup­tion is a can­cer that af­flicts so­ci­et­ies strug­gling to ad­opt demo­crat­ic val­ues and forms of gov­ernance, and those that make no or few pre­tenses about demo­crat­ic val­ues. It also hits all es­tab­lished and ven­er­ated demo­cra­cies. It can come in big forms — lead­ers such as Tur­key’s Ra­cep Tayyip Er­dogan or Rus­sia’s Vladi­mir Putin and their cronies, and ol­ig­archs pil­ing up for­tunes; and it can come in smal­ler forms — pro­fess­ors in Kenya de­mand­ing sexu­al fa­vors or money in re­turn for grades, or loc­al of­fi­cials in In­dia de­mand­ing bribes for ser­vices. It can be il­leg­al or leg­al, in­clud­ing, as Grasso poin­ted out, cor­rupt or­gan­iz­a­tions and in­di­vidu­als laun­der­ing their ill-got­ten gains through le­git­im­ate or­gan­iz­a­tions they pur­chase.

Laws are ne­ces­sary to com­bat cor­rup­tion, but the laws need to be en­forced by hon­est pro­sec­utors and judges, and they need to be bolstered by a cul­ture that sup­ports and abets hon­est gov­ernance. Both the Czech Re­pub­lic and Slov­akia moved to cre­ate in­de­pend­ent ju­di­ciar­ies by hav­ing 12-year terms for judges, in­su­lat­ing them from polit­ic­al pres­sure. But the Czech Re­pub­lic, thanks to Vaclav Havel, picked judges of ster­ling char­ac­ter, while Slov­akia, with no Havel, picked some shady ones who now op­er­ate in a cor­rupt fash­ion, and has no abil­ity to re­move or con­strain them.

Many Amer­ic­ans come to the World For­um on Gov­ernance, and our role, in part, has been to of­fer ad­vice to re­formers in­side and out­side gov­ern­ments from around the world that we would nor­mally view as “less de­veloped” in their demo­crat­ic cul­ture and in­sti­tu­tions. Not this year. Lots of non-Amer­ic­ans knew about the U.S. Su­preme Court’s Cit­izens United and Mc­Cutcheon de­cisions and wondered how the United States could be slip­ping back so much.

That is a long in­tro­duc­tion to a column about Mc­Cutcheon. Many ana­lysts have writ­ten a lot about the de­cision, with a nat­ur­al fo­cus on its dir­ect im­plic­a­tions for cam­paigns. Those are huge and im­port­ant. But they are, I be­lieve, over­shad­owed by the im­pact of the de­cision on cor­rup­tion in Amer­ica.

Here, Rick Hasen and Dah­lia Lith­wick, two of the best leg­al ana­lysts in the coun­try, have weighed in, and I want to add my weight.

Some have sug­ges­ted that Mc­Cutcheon was not a ter­ribly con­sequen­tial de­cision — that it did not really end in­di­vidu­al con­tri­bu­tion lim­its, that it was a minor ad­just­ment post-Cit­izens United. Oth­ers have said that it may have a sil­ver lin­ing: more money to parties, more of the money dis­closed. I dis­agree on both counts. Justice Brey­er’s pen­et­rat­ing dis­sent to the de­cision poin­ted out the many meth­ods that cam­paigns, parties, and their law­yers would use to laun­der huge con­tri­bu­tions in ways that would make a mock­ery of in­di­vidu­al lim­its. Chief Justice Roberts pooh-poo­hed them as fanci­ful. And, of course, they star­ted to emerge the day after the de­cision.

As for dis­clos­ure, the huge amounts that will now flow in through polit­ic­al parties will be channeled through joint com­mit­tees, state and loc­al party com­mit­tees, and oth­ers in com­plex ways that will make real dis­clos­ure im­mensely dif­fi­cult, if not im­possible.

More sig­ni­fic­ant, in any case, were Roberts’s sweep­ing con­clu­sions about cor­rup­tion and the ap­pear­ance of cor­rup­tion in the de­cision. The chief justice took the shaky con­clu­sion reached by Justice An­thony Kennedy in the Cit­izens United de­cision — that money giv­en “in­de­pend­ently” of cam­paigns could not in­volve cor­rup­tion or its ap­pear­ance — and ap­plied it in an even more com­pre­hens­ive fash­ion to money giv­en dir­ectly to can­did­ates and cam­paigns. Thanks to Mc­Cutcheon, only quid pro quo cor­rup­tion is suf­fi­cient to trig­ger any re­stric­tions on cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions — mean­ing, dir­ect bribery of the Ab­scam or Amer­ic­an Hustle vari­ety, pre­sum­ably cap­tured on video­tape for the world to see. The ap­pear­ance of cor­rup­tion? For­get about it. Re­stric­tions on elec­ted of­fi­cials so­li­cit­ing big money? For­get about them, too.

To any­one who has ac­tu­ally been around the law­mak­ing pro­cess or the polit­ic­al pro­cess more gen­er­ally, this is mind-bog­gling. It makes leg­al what has for gen­er­a­tions been il­leg­al or at least im­mor­al. It re­turns law­mak­ing to the kind of fa­vor-trad­ing bazaar that was com­mon in the Gil­ded Age.

With in­tense com­pet­i­tion between parties over elec­tion out­comes, with the stakes in­cred­ibly high over who will cap­ture ma­jor­it­ies in a po­lar­ized era, and with money every­where and in­tense com­pet­i­tion for dol­lars, the trade of fa­vors for money — and the threat of dam­age for the fail­ure to pro­duce money — will be every­where. Ac­cess to law­makers, pres­id­ents, their aides, and sub­or­din­ates is pre­cious, in­clud­ing when they are ac­tu­ally mark­ing up le­gis­la­tion. In the af­ter­math of Roberts’s de­cisions, this pre­cious ac­cess will be sold to the highest bid­ders.

I re­mem­ber well the pre-re­form era where there were “Speak­er’s Clubs” and “Pres­id­ent’s Clubs” with menus for soft-money donors: for $10,000, lunch with key com­mit­tee chairs and a day hob­nob­bing with im­port­ant law­makers and com­mit­tee staffers; for $25,000, all that and a small break­fast or lunch with the speak­er; and so on. Those will be back, with the dol­lar amounts high­er and the ac­cess more in­tim­ate. Big donors will make clear to party lead­ers that mul­ti­mil­lion-dol­lar dona­tions are one step away — and will be forth­com­ing if only the lead­ers will un­der­stand the le­gis­lat­ive needs of the donor. Mc­Cutcheon not only made all that leg­al but also gave it the Su­preme Court’s seal of ap­prov­al.

Ol­ig­archs will rule.

Roberts has, over the past few years, taken a meat-ax to 50 years and more of law and pre­ced­ent on cam­paign fin­ance, even as he took a meat-ax to vot­ing rights. In both areas, he showered con­tempt on Con­gress and its laws. All after he as­sured sen­at­ors dur­ing his con­firm­a­tion hear­ings that he would bend over back­ward to rule nar­rowly, find con­sensus, and re­spect pre­ced­ent. It is hard to es­cape the con­clu­sion that he de­lib­er­ately misled the Sen­ate to win con­firm­a­tion.

Many of those who cel­eb­rate these de­cisions say they simply re­flect the Con­sti­tu­tion. Wrong.

They re­flect five ideo­lo­gic­ally driv­en justices and their world views. If not for the de­cision of Sandra Day O’Con­nor to re­tire from the Court to care for her hus­band and his Alzheimer’s dis­ease, we would have ex­per­i­enced the op­pos­ite de­cisions in Cit­izens United, Shelby County, and Mc­Cutcheon. Vot­ing rights would be pro­tec­ted and not sup­pressed, cor­rup­tion would be re­strained and not cel­eb­rated, ol­ig­archs would be lim­ited and not reign­ing su­preme.

Ben Frank­lin fam­ously answered a ques­tion about our emer­gent form of gov­ern­ment fol­low­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion­al Con­ven­tion by say­ing, “A Re­pub­lic, if you can keep it.” Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, we have kept a re­pub­lic — but it is mov­ing rap­idly to­ward the ba­nana vari­ety.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4891) }}

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.