Concurring Opinions » Parchment Barriers: Why Tillman and Natelson Are Wrong about the Anti-Corruption Principle

If one reads the proceedings of the federal convention - Madison's notes - it is plain that control of faction is a central principle.  Related is the concern about corruption - a subsidiary principle - because the wealth transfer by majorities that Madison feared is achieved by corruption of government.  Avoiding corruption is therefore a driving force for the first "founders".  Zephy Teachout and Lawrence Lessig are on the case. - GWC
Concurring Opinions » Parchment Barriers: Why Tillman and Natelson Are Wrong about the Anti-Corruption Principle:
by Zepyr Teachout // Fordham Law School
"I have argued in several articles and a forthcoming book that the Anti-Corruption Principle was and is a foundational constitutional principle. Larry Lessig has argued the same in a book, several articles, and a brief before the Supreme Court. He also runs a fascinating tumblr of corruption conversations at the convention. We both show how it motivated the Constitutional convention and was the overwhelming topic of the convention. The founding drafters would judge their own success or failure in terms of the Constitution in terms of whether or not it protected against corruption.  As George Mason said as the Constitutional Convention got under way: “If we do not provide against corruption, our government will soon be at an end.” I am not going to recite the argument here–its a substantial, text and history based argument. However, it leads to treating the Anti-Corruption Principle like federalism or the separation of powers–a fundamental structural part of the Constitution."

'via Blog this'