Do you remember learning that corruption among the nobility and clergy played a pivotal role in the decline and collapse of the Ancien Régime in France? The French monarchy was plagued by financial mismanagement, tax evasion by the nobility and widespread corruption within the royal court and aristocratic circles, exacerbating social and economic tensions and grievances that ultimately led to an explosion— the French Revolution (1789). The French regime was hardly the first— nor the last— to disintegrate because of elite corruption. In fact, throughout history, many powerful nations have experienced decline and collapse due, at least in part, to political elites' corruption which undermined the stability, effectiveness and legitimacy of government institutions, leading to a range of negative consequences for society as a whole, including economic decline due to, among other things, favoritism in awarding contracts and licenses and the diversion of public funds for private gain which, in turn, reduced investor confidence, hindered economic growth and intensifed income inequality.
You don’t have to be a political scientist to understand that when political elites prioritize their own interests over those of the general population, it breeds resentment, social unrest, political instability and even revolution. Elite corruption invariably erodes trust in government institutions and undermines the rule of law— whether during the Venetian patriciate, the Roman Empire, Tsarist Russia or the Trump regime. In ancient Greece, Athens experienced a period of decline in the 4th century BC, in great part due to corruption among political elites. Athenian democracy, once celebrated for its ideals of equality and citizen participation, became increasingly dominated by wealthy aristocrats who used their influence to manipulate politics and enrich themselves at the expense of the common citizens. This erosion of democratic values weakened Athenian society and contributed to its loss of prominence in the Greek world.
A little over a week ago, George Santos said he is too embarrassed by their behavior to remain in the Republican Party, quit and announced he’s running for Congress, as an independent, in another district from the one he got run out of by the GOP. He indicated that the reason is so he can seek revenge against the GOP incumbent, Nick LaLota, who led the charge to expel him from Congress. Santos knows full well his trial begins in September and he’ll probably have been sentenced to a long prison term before the November election. And he will no doubt appeal. All that’s going to cost him a lot of money in legal fees— not counting the tremendous fines and restitutions he’s going to probably be facing.
Having watched Trump, he’s aware that if you’re a politician running for office— even in a pretend campaign— you can use campaign contributions for your defense fund. Trump has been draining his own campaign. As of 2 months ago he had used $55 million in campaign funds on his court cases. Now he’ll also be draining the RNC. It’s a cute trick that the Supreme Court says is perfectly ok-- just a little more of their reeking legalistic corruption.
Last week, Ryan Cooper reported how Bob Menendez is doing the same thing with his fake indie campaign in New Jersey. “The sheer comical excess of the Menendez indictment,” wrote Cooper, “illustrates how rampant political corruption is in this country. The reason people getting nailed by law enforcement for corruption tend to be people with literal gold bars and stacks of cash sewn into their jackets is because of Supreme Court decisions making it impossible to prosecute instances of corruption that are somewhat more deniable. In McDonald v U.S., the Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a former Virginia governor and his wife who had set up meetings with officials for a pharmaceutical company while taking valuable gifts from the company’s owner. In FEC v Ted Cruz for Senate, it ruled that candidates can loan their campaigns money, and then pay themselves back with donor cash after the election is over and the victor is known— effectively opening a window labeled “bribes here.” And in Citizens United v. FEC, of course, they legalized effectively limitless corporate spending in politics. Partly as a result of these decisions, Washington, D.C., is absolutely awash with people being effectively bribed, morally if not legally. Lobbyists are throwing all kinds of money and gifts around all the time. As a politician, if you behave well in office as a senator or representative, you can expect to be offered all kinds of cushy lobbyist or no-show ‘consulting’ jobs that are actually worth much more than a sack of gold ingots. And of course, the justices of the conservative Court majority themselves, as ProPublica has shown, have been gleefully wallowing in an ocean of right-wing billionaire cash like pigs in muck.”
So while Menendez was doing the kind of idiotic corruption that actually may have run afoul of the remaining shreds of anti-corruption law, now he is taking advantage of a more subtle variety: spending his campaign money on his legal bills. Should he actually contest the Senate election this year, he is absolutely certain to lose— a recent poll found him with 75 percent disapproval among New Jersey residents— and he’s already given up on seeking re-election as a Democrat. But pretending to be running allows him to spend his remaining campaign funds on his legal defense. Just between October and December last year, he spent $2.3 million out of his campaign coffers on legal fees. And as of the end of December, there’s still another $6.2 million in that account.
This is all apparently aboveboard. As the Federal Election Commission explains, candidates can’t use their campaign money for personal use, which “means any use of funds in a campaign account of a present or former candidate to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder.” Since a politician engaging in corruption in office by definition would not happen without being elected first, it must not be personal!
In other words, if you get in a bar fight and are charged with assault, you can’t spend campaign funds on your defense. But if you’re charged with selling your Senate vote to the highest bidder, you typically can. As a D.C. Circuit Court decision written by none other than Merrick Garland concludes: “[T]wenty years of advisory opinions have concluded that legal expenditures made in response to charges of campaign or official misconduct are not personal; expenditures to rebut allegations of personal misconduct are.”
Chaos and dysfunction in Congress flows directly from Trump and he’s the reason so many Republicans have cut their congressional careers short. Yesterday, referring to Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Ken Buck (R-CO), Trump denounced “our cowards and weaklings.” Gee, it seems only yesterday when Trump was celebrating Buck’s announcement that he was leaving and as far as Gallagher… well, I don’t agree with him politically but if we’re talking cowards and weaklings, he was a marine in Iraq long after Trump draft-dodged and later called people who enlist in the armed forces “suckers.”
