- 1/ This is true if you think that John Roberts's and Anthony Kennedy's understanding of corruption in the context of nonjudicial candidates and government officials *is* the meaning of corruption.
- 2/ Of course, until a couple of decades ago, the Supreme Court had a broader understanding of corruption even in those contexts. And even today, the Supreme Court applies a looser standard of corruption when dealing with elected judicial officials. See papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....May 12, 2025 14:33
- 3/ But most importantly, there is absolutely no reason why our public discussion of what is or is not corrupt should be limited by the stunted conception that the Roberts Court has chosen to apply.
- 4/ Corruption is an essentially contested concept. You need to *argue* for a particular understanding. Lipton is just ruling anything other than quid-pro-quo out of bounds, but without giving any sort of reason for doing so.