Chapter 2: Branding corruption
An example of the branding of a legal concept is what the Roberts Supreme Court has done to the meaning of the word “corruption” in both campaign finance and white collar crime cases. Before it got its hands on this word, “corruption” had a very broad meaning. But the Roberts Court has branded “corruption” to be a very thin reed of a word. The basic branding that the Supreme Court has repeated is that “political corruption only means quid pro quo exchanges.” This fences out broader ideas of what a corrupt political system comprises. From Randall v. Sorrell to McCutcheon v. FEC, and from Skilling to McDonnell, the Supreme Court has changed what counts as corruption. And as this chapter explores, politicians accused of criminally abusing their positions of power have been eager to use these cases to argue to lower courts that they should not be punished.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.