Welcome to the Supreme Court, where corruption has no meaning; The Washington Post, June 22, 2023

 Paul Waldman , The Washington. Post; Welcome to the Supreme Court, where corruption has no meaning

"There are two seminal rulings that show how the court has altered the relationship between public officials and the ultrawealthy who want things from them: The first is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which — along with a series of subsequent casesthat opened the floodgates to ever-increasing political spending — insisted that we shouldn’t worry about the corrupting influence of all that money.

The second was McDonnell v. United States (2016), in which the court overturned the conviction of former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell, who had accepted $175,000 in gifts and loans — including a $20,000 shopping spree for his wife, the use of a Ferrari and a Rolex watch — from a donor who was seeking the state’s help in promoting his business. The court ruled that since McDonnell only partially came through for the donor — he set up a series of meetings with the donor and other officials — he hadn’t taken “official acts” in exchange for the money and gifts, and therefore he was innocent. More cases dismissing corruption accusations followed.

“This court majority has put in place a radically diminished notion of what corruption is,” said Michael Waldman, head of the Brennan Center for Justice and author of a new book on the Supreme Court. “There’s an ideology that rich people throwing their money around in a way that benefits these officials is not corrupting unless you have a receipt showing ‘I admit to receiving a bribe.’”

The result is a world in which the ultrawealthy face few constraints in developing problematic relationships, and those they want to influence, whether judges or politicians, can enjoy the fruits of their generosity unfettered by pesky rules and regulations."