[EL] Irrespective of the candidacy

[Allen Dickerson]

While I share your fondness for Chancellor Kent, there have been post-1911
cases on the topic. For example Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52
(1997). There, a unanimous court noted "no serious doubt about the
constitutionality" of a federal bribery statute as applied to a Texas deputy
sheriff indicted for actions occurring in a county jail. 

 

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Jon
Roland
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 1:25 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Irrespective of the candidacy

 

With that exception the application of the statute becomes constitutionally
void for vagueness, if it were not already unconstitutional for other
reasons. The only legislative jurisdiction Congress has to even make bribery
a crime is for acts committed on the ground of federal enclaves created
under U.S. Const. Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17
<http://constitution.org/constit_.htm#con1.8.17> , or on territories outside
state jurisdiction under U.S. Const. Art IV Sec. 3 Cl. 2
<http://constitution.org/constit_.htm#con4.3.2> . I see nothing in the
indictment that specifies that the act in question occurred within such
territory. If not, the case fails for lack of territorial jurisdiction. 

For more on territorial limits to the legislative jurisdiction of Congress
see
 <http://constitution.org/juris/fjur/fed_jur.htm> Jurisdiction over Federal
Areas within the States
 <http://supreme.justia.com/us/31/141/case.html> United States v. Paul, 31
U.S. 6 Pet. 141 141 (1832)
 <http://supreme.justia.com/us/37/72/case.html> United States v. Coombs, 37
U.S. 12 Pet. 72 72 (1838)
 <http://supreme.justia.com/us/216/559/case.html> Franklin v. United States,
216 U.S. 559 (1910)
 <http://supreme.justia.com/us/219/1/case.html> United States v. Press
Publishing Co., 219 U.S. 1 (1911)
James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Lecture 17
<http://www.constitution.org/jk/jk_017.htm> .


For it to be bribery, there would have to be some quid pro quo. Somehow I
doubt that Bunny Mellon gave the money to Edwards expecting some public
decision to be made differently by him. She reported it as a gift, and that
works for me. I might question the soundness of making such a gift when
there are so many other more deserving objects, but it's her money and she
can do whatever she wants with it.

But this case provides a good teaching moment for the absurdity of the
entire enterprise of campaign finance legislation.

My position that that there is indeed a public choice problem associated
with the ways money unduly influences electoral campaigns, but there is no
regulatory solution that will either work or is constitutional. None
whatsoever. Any attempts to do so can only make the situation even worse.

As long as money can influence elections or other political decisions, it
will. The only way anyone has found to avoid that is to abandon elections
altogether, and go to a system of sortition
<http://constitution.org/elec/sortition.htm> , or random selection of the
decisionmakers from the general public, who serve for short periods of time
with no prospects for gain. That is the theory for juries. 

On 06/07/2011 10:11 AM, Rick Hasen wrote: 

irrespective of the candidacy






-- Jon
 
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322           twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001  jon.roland at constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110607/76d23045/attachment.html>