Zephyr Teachout
In Citizens United, the Court appeared to shut the door on legislative efforts to curtail undue corporate political influence by holding that only quid pro quo corruption could justify campaign finance regulation that infringed on First Amendment. However, the Court’s holding only addresses the unconstitutionality of criminal sanctions for corporate political speech.
Citizens United (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This article considers a path left open by that analysis: using contract law rather than criminal law minimize corruption. Professor Teachout turns to a line of nineteenth century cases in which courts decide that public policy demands the non-enforcement of contracts whose underlying bargain is corrupt. Teachout examines four cases in which courts utilize a broad view of corruption that looked beyond the mere exchange of cash for votes.
These nineteenth century cases remind us that the judiciary can and should take an active role in resisting undue influence as a form of corruption. This article suggests that contract law and the non-enforcement of corrupt contracts may be an effective way to limit undue corporate influence on elections without running afoul of Citizens United.
View Complete Article (PDF)
Like this:
Like Loading...
N.Y.U. Review of Law and Social Change 