In Democracy magazine, Zephyr Teachout writes about how the Supreme Court’s narrow definition of corruption threatens not just campaign finance law, but the very idea of the public good.
While I agree that the meaning of the public good is contested, I disagree that it is so contested that it can’t have any constitutional meaning. Moreover, I believe that direct engagement in questions of morality in public service is essential for the Court. The Court cannot avoid political philosophy. Its current rejection of the traditional language of corruption and the public good does not save it from these difficult questions.
Read the full article in Democracy here.
