"Instead, this is corruption because it weakens the integrity of the institution, of Congress itself. The framers intended Congress to be "dependent upon the People alone.""
By Lawrence Lessig
"Institutional corruption does not refer to the knowing violation of any law or ethical rule. This is not the problem of Rod Blagojevich, or, more generally, of bad souls acting badly. It instead describes an influence, financial or otherwise, within an economy of influence, that weakens the effectiveness of an institution, especially by weakening public trust in that institution. (An economy of influence rather than the simpler system of influence to emphasize the reciprocal character of such influence, often requiring little or no direct coordination.)
Congress is a paradigm case. Members of Congress run privately financed campaigns. The contributions that fund those campaigns are not illegal, or even unethical. To the contrary, they are protected speech under the First Amendment.
Yet arguablyor maybe obviouslythose contributions are (1) an influence (2) within an economy of influence that has (3) (quite likely) weakened the ability of Congress to do its work, by (4) (certainly) weakening public trust in Congress. The vast majority of Americans believe money buys results in Congress; less than a quarter of Americans believe the institution worthy of their trust. When free-market Republicans vote to support milk subsidies or sugar tariffs, or when pro-consumer Democrats vote to exempt used-car dealers from consumer financial-protection legislation, it is easy to understand the mistrust and hard to believe that the influence of money hasnt weakened the ability of members to serve the principles, or even the interests, they were elected to represent."
Boston Review — Lawrence Lessig: Democracy After Citizens United
By Lawrence Lessig
"Institutional corruption does not refer to the knowing violation of any law or ethical rule. This is not the problem of Rod Blagojevich, or, more generally, of bad souls acting badly. It instead describes an influence, financial or otherwise, within an economy of influence, that weakens the effectiveness of an institution, especially by weakening public trust in that institution. (An economy of influence rather than the simpler system of influence to emphasize the reciprocal character of such influence, often requiring little or no direct coordination.)
Congress is a paradigm case. Members of Congress run privately financed campaigns. The contributions that fund those campaigns are not illegal, or even unethical. To the contrary, they are protected speech under the First Amendment.
Yet arguablyor maybe obviouslythose contributions are (1) an influence (2) within an economy of influence that has (3) (quite likely) weakened the ability of Congress to do its work, by (4) (certainly) weakening public trust in Congress. The vast majority of Americans believe money buys results in Congress; less than a quarter of Americans believe the institution worthy of their trust. When free-market Republicans vote to support milk subsidies or sugar tariffs, or when pro-consumer Democrats vote to exempt used-car dealers from consumer financial-protection legislation, it is easy to understand the mistrust and hard to believe that the influence of money hasnt weakened the ability of members to serve the principles, or even the interests, they were elected to represent."
Boston Review — Lawrence Lessig: Democracy After Citizens United
