Welcome to the Supreme Court, where corruption has no meaning
The fact that the ultrawealthy and their political operatives are showering Supreme Court justices with private jet rides, luxury vacations and in some cases the equivalent of cash is a scandal. The fact that the justices have attempted to conceal their behavior and are now acting offended when questioned about it is vulgar in the extreme.
But here’s something even worse: Conservatives justices have sought to impose the same problematic standards they apply to Supreme Court ethics to the entire political system.
The latest scandal, as reported by ProPublica, involves Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and a luxury fishing trip he took to Alaska, organized by former Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo. Alito flew there on the private jet of Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who repeatedly had interests before the court. Not only did Alito not recuse himself from cases in which Singer was involved, but he also didn’t report the 2008 trip on his disclosure forms. (In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published before the ProPublica piece was released, Alito insisted he had no obligation to either disclose the trip or recuse himself from Singer’s cases.) It turns out that, like his colleague Clarence Thomas, Alito has a taste for the finer things.
Republicans have rallied around Alito and Thomas, expressing shock that anyone would question these fine men. In their minds, the justices have every right to accept gifts from people with interests before the court and keep them secret because they would never be influenced by something as trivial as a ride on a private jet.
If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s essentially the same logic underpinning how conservative justices have viewed corruption law in recent years.
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 cases that 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. When we learn, for example, that a developer lent a golf simulator to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s mansion, it isn’t surprising; it’s just one of the perks of office.
Courts used to operate under the principle that preventing the appearance of corruption was a worthwhile goal even if explicit quid pro quos could not be proved, because that appearance undermines faith in government. No longer. Now, the freedom of the billionaire, the judge and the governor is paramount. They shouldn’t be deprived of life’s pleasures, should they?
“The fact that these justices move in a world of wealth and luxury, surrounded by wealthy acolytes, and view this as normal, has to shape their view of public corruption,” Waldman told me. “It’s not just that a specific case is in front of the court, but a worldview is being reinforced. And that worldview has led them bit by bit to dismantle the anti-corruption laws and the campaign finance laws. It seems to them like the natural order of things.”
The public is left to watch in disgust, with each new story showing that at least some justices think it’s their right to be wined and dined by billionaires, then issue rulings making it easier for relationships between public officials and wealthy donors to flourish.
“The hallmark of a democratic society is for the public to have trust in their institutions,” Kedric Payne of the Campaign Legal Center told me. “When you start to chip away at what corruption means, then you chip away at public trust.”
To the Supreme Court, corruption means less and less.
But the rest of Americans know what it is. They’re looking right at it.