Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $16.64 shipping
100% positive over last 12 months
+ $16.64 shipping
49% positive over last 12 months
+ $16.64 shipping
100% positive over last 12 months
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the author
OK
Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United 1st Edition
Purchase options and add-ons
- ISBN-100674050401
- ISBN-13978-0674050402
- Edition1st
- PublisherHarvard University Press
- Publication dateSeptember 29, 2014
- LanguageEnglish
- Dimensions5.75 x 1.25 x 8.5 inches
- Print length384 pages
Customers who bought this item also bought
Editorial Reviews
Review
In Corruption in America, an eloquent, revealing, and sometimes surprising historical inquiry, Teachout convincingly argues that corruption, broadly understood as placing private interests over the public good in public office, is at the root of what ails American democracy. (David Cole New York Review of Books)
Teachout’s book is filled with colorful anecdotes about Americans getting away with all sorts of chicanery…Corruption in America shows that it is possible to establish and maintain governmental institutions that shield us from our worst instincts. This was the goal of Madison and his peers, and it could still be achieved with a better public-election finance system, which could be constitutional under Citizens United if the system did not restrict private donations. Democrats who will be looking for a fresh agenda in 2016 should read Teachout’s book carefully. (Max Ehrenfreund Washington Post)
A book that merits the large readership it may get…Teachout’s narrative spans the history of the United States from its beginnings through Chief Justice John Roberts’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC. (Scott McLemee Inside Higher Ed)
Zephyr Teachout argues that recent court decisions―and a lax attitude toward corruption―are putting private interests over the public good. Teachout complains of the revolving-door practice of congressional representatives retiring and becoming lobbyists. She says the policy breeds ethical conflicts and tainted decision-making. (Carl Campanile New York Post)
Teachout’s beautifully written and powerful book exposes a simple but profound error at the core of the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon v. FEC decision. The originalists on the Court forgot their history. This is that history―and eventually it will provide the basis for reversing the Court’s critical error. (Lawrence Lessig, author of Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress―and a Plan to Stop It)
This is a wonderful and important book. Zephyr Teachout shows what’s wrong with how the Supreme Court thinks about democracy and political corruption, how we got to this terrible place, and that it wasn’t always this way―and doesn’t have to be. There’s a lot of learning and original synthesis here, and also an unmistakable voice, which blends a lively intelligence with passion for democracy as a way of life. (Jedediah Purdy, author of A Tolerable Anarchy: Rebels, Reactionaries, and the Making of American Freedom)
You have probably heard pundits say we are living in an age of ‘legalized bribery’; Corruption in America is the book that makes their case in careful detail…State governments subject to wealthy corporations? Check. Speculators in legislation, infesting the capital? They call it K Street…And all of it has happened, Teachout admonishes, because the founders’ understanding of corruption has been methodically taken apart by a Supreme Court that cynically pretends to worship the founders’ every word. (Thomas Frank New York Times Book Review)
[Teachout] wrote [this] book, she says, primarily in answer to conservative members of the Supreme Court, who, in a series of decisions climaxing in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, have successively narrowed the legal definition of corruption to the point that it now effectively includes only outright bribery. In Citizens United, for example, the majority struck down corporate spending limits in politics on the grounds that there is nothing inherently corrupting about corporations trying to buy influence with politicians so long as there is no explicit quid pro quo. Teachout spends much of her book showing just how naive, dangerous, and, frankly, anti-American the Founding Fathers would have considered such reasoning…It is certainly refreshing to watch Teachout remind jurists who pretend to wrap themselves in the mantle of strict construction just how at odds their views of human nature and the role of government are with those of the framers. (Daniel Bush Washington Monthly)
[Teachout] has written an intelligent, stimulating, and wide-ranging retort to the Roberts Court’s constrained view of corruption. In Corruption in America, she argues that for democracy to thrive, we need a far more capacious characterization of this key concept…Her book in part [is] a greatest hits of court cases and laws dealing with bribery and lobbying, full of corrupt land deals and railroad intrigue…While there is obviously plenty to debate and disagree over in how we might define and delineate corruption, the broad unsettledness of the concept is perhaps Teachout’s point. She has some ideas on how we might think about corruption, and she highlights others’ ideas as well. But mostly, she just wants us to debate and discuss corruption more, to view it as a controversial issue, and not to let the Roberts Court sweep it away into a marginal corner so that it can then declare it irrelevant, thus clearing the way for unlimited campaign contributions…Teachout’s book may be just the rousing call to arms we need for the fight ahead. (Lee Drutman Democracy)
After a thorough and almost agonizingly detailed grand tour of dozens of often conflicting federal and state court decisions differing on the precise legal meaning of ‘corruption,’ Teachout ends up with a book that should become required reading in constitutional law classes. (Michael Hirsch Indypendent)
Teachout explores case law and controversies before the 1970s and finds that many generations of jurists and politicians had a much broader conception of political corruption and a richer sense of civic duty and viewed any sort of gift-giving from private citizens to public officials as ethically dubious and undermining of democratic legitimacy. Though there was quite a bit of public corruption in the old days, there was also a respect for public virtue for which modern jurisprudence has little patience. The Supreme Court’s dramatic turn away from an older tradition leaves Congress unable to regulate lobbying and campaign spending wisely, should it chose to do so. With public confidence in government low and Washington politics driven by the agendas of corporations and the wealthy, Teachout’s argument is timely, compelling, and important. (R. M. Flanagan Choice)
This is an important book. (Mark G. Spencer Times Literary Supplement)
[A] groundbreaking book. (John Nichols The Nation)
A serious scholarly take-down of the American campaign finance system. (Zach Carter Huffington Post)
Review
-- Sarah Chayes Wall Street Journal
In Corruption in America, an eloquent, revealing, and sometimes surprising historical inquiry, Teachout convincingly argues that corruption, broadly understood as placing private interests over the public good in public office, is at the root of what ails American democracy.
-- David Cole New York Review of Books
Teachout’s book is filled with colorful anecdotes about Americans getting away with all sorts of chicanery… Corruption in America shows that it is possible to establish and maintain governmental institutions that shield us from our worst instincts. This was the goal of Madison and his peers, and it could still be achieved with a better public-election finance system, which could be constitutional under Citizens United if the system did not restrict private donations. Democrats who will be looking for a fresh agenda in 2016 should read Teachout’s book carefully.
-- Max Ehrenfreund Washington Post
[A] groundbreaking book.
-- John Nichols The Nation
You have probably heard pundits say we are living in an age of ‘legalized bribery’; Corruption in America is the book that makes their case in careful detail… State governments subject to wealthy corporations? Check. Speculators in legislation, infesting the capital? They call it K Street… And all of it has happened, Teachout admonishes, because the founders’ understanding of corruption has been methodically taken apart by a Supreme Court that cynically pretends to worship the founders’ every word.
-- Thomas Frank New York Times Book Review
[Teachout] has written an intelligent, stimulating, and wide-ranging retort to the Roberts Court’s constrained view of corruption. In Corruption in America, she argues that for democracy to thrive, we need a far more capacious characterization of this key concept… Her book in part [is] a greatest hits of court cases and laws dealing with bribery and lobbying, full of corrupt land deals and railroad intrigue… While there is obviously plenty to debate and disagree over in how we might define and delineate corruption, the broad unsettledness of the concept is perhaps Teachout’s point. She has some ideas on how we might think about corruption, and she highlights others’ ideas as well. But mostly, she just wants us to debate and discuss corruption more, to view it as a controversial issue, and not to let the Roberts Court sweep it away into a marginal corner so that it can then declare it irrelevant, thus clearing the way for unlimited campaign contributions… Teachout’s book may be just the rousing call to arms we need for the fight ahead.
-- Lee Drutman Democracy
[Teachout] wrote [this] book, she says, primarily in answer to conservative members of the Supreme Court, who, in a series of decisions climaxing in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, have successively narrowed the legal definition of corruption to the point that it now effectively includes only outright bribery. In Citizens United, for example, the majority struck down corporate spending limits in politics on the grounds that there is nothing inherently corrupting about corporations trying to buy influence with politicians so long as there is no explicit quid pro quo. Teachout spends much of her book showing just how naive, dangerous, and, frankly, anti-American the Founding Fathers would have considered such reasoning… It is certainly refreshing to watch Teachout remind jurists who pretend to wrap themselves in the mantle of strict construction just how at odds their views of human nature and the role of government are with those of the framers.
-- Daniel Bush Washington Monthly
A serious scholarly take-down of the American campaign finance system.
-- Zach Carter Huffington Post
After a thorough and almost agonizingly detailed grand tour of dozens of often conflicting federal and state court decisions differing on the precise legal meaning of ‘corruption,’ Teachout ends up with a book that should become required reading in constitutional law classes.
-- Michael Hirsch Indypendent
A book that merits the large readership it may get… Teachout’s narrative spans the history of the United States from its beginnings through Chief Justice John Roberts’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC.
-- Scott McLemee Inside Higher Ed
Zephyr Teachout argues that recent court decisions―and a lax attitude toward corruption―are putting private interests over the public good. Teachout complains of the revolving-door practice of congressional representatives retiring and becoming lobbyists. She says the policy breeds ethical conflicts and tainted decision-making.
-- Carl Campanile New York Post
This is an important book.
-- Mark G. Spencer Times Literary Supplement
Teachout explores case law and controversies before the 1970s and finds that many generations of jurists and politicians had a much broader conception of political corruption and a richer sense of civic duty and viewed any sort of gift-giving from private citizens to public officials as ethically dubious and undermining of democratic legitimacy. Though there was quite a bit of public corruption in the old days, there was also a respect for public virtue for which modern jurisprudence has little patience. The Supreme Court’s dramatic turn away from an older tradition leaves Congress unable to regulate lobbying and campaign spending wisely, should it chose to do so. With public confidence in government low and Washington politics driven by the agendas of corporations and the wealthy, Teachout’s argument is timely, compelling, and important.
-- R. M. Flanagan Choice
Teachout’s beautifully written and powerful book exposes a simple but profound error at the core of the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon v. FEC decision. The originalists on the Court forgot their history. This is that history―and eventually it will provide the basis for reversing the Court’s critical error.
-- Lawrence Lessig, author of Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress―and a Plan to Stop It
This is a wonderful and important book. Zephyr Teachout shows what’s wrong with how the Supreme Court thinks about democracy and political corruption, how we got to this terrible place, and that it wasn’t always this way―and doesn’t have to be. There’s a lot of learning and original synthesis here, and also an unmistakable voice, which blends a lively intelligence with passion for democracy as a way of life.
-- Jedediah Purdy, author of A Tolerable Anarchy: Rebels, Reactionaries, and the Making of American Freedom
About the Author
Product details
- Publisher : Harvard University Press; 1st edition (September 29, 2014)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 384 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0674050401
- ISBN-13 : 978-0674050402
- Item Weight : 2.55 pounds
- Dimensions : 5.75 x 1.25 x 8.5 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #452,919 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #24 in Philosophy of Law
- #222 in Legal History (Books)
- #1,711 in History & Theory of Politics
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The following are notes from this book that should be of use to many Political Science students:
King Louis XVI in 1785 gave Benjamin Franklin a snuff box worth five times more than gifts given to other diplomats. Some viewed the gift as a statement of friendship, while others saw it as a bribe. According to the Constitution, Congress has to approve acceptance of all such gifts.
Corruption debates led to the 17th Amendment for the direct election of Senator instead of Senators perhaps bribing or influencing state legislator to vote for them.
Corruption debates led to the 27th Amendment that Congress can not vote itself a pay raise and that Congressional salary increases could not be effective until the next Congressional session.
In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valco invalidated a law limiting campaign spending, The Court stated doing so limited First Amendment rights of free speech.
In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United struck down an individual and corporate spending limitations when influencing policies and elections. Justice Anthony Kennedy defined corruption as an exchange as a quid pro quo for something illegal. He saw speaking on issues as not being corrupt.
Treachout argues that considering only First Amendment rights on campaign spending is too narrow a focus. Candidates are often dependent on contributions from those with wealth. Our government is heading towards oligarchy.
The ban of gifts from foreign dignitaries in the Constitution did not include a clause for small tokens. As Teachout observes, “that fierce rejection of “of any kind what ever reveals a commitment to transform the political culture that persisted from the Revolutionary era to the Constitutional era. It was a ban on a culture of gift giving.”
The founders of our nation feared people becoming members of Congress in order to get jobs. They did not foresee today’s practice of over half of former members of Congress becoming lobbyists.
A large size in the number of members of Congress was believed by Elbridge Gerry to lead to fewer possibilities for corruption as there were be more people whose actions would have to be coordinated. Alexander Hamilton believed who were shown as corruption would be defeated for reelection.
Patrick Henry in 1775 received 35 million acres of land near the Yazoo River from the Governor of Georgia. Public reaction arose against this seeming gift to a politician. The Governor responded by insisting the land b paid for in gold or silver Henry could not make that paymet. Henry asked the Georgian legislature to sell the proposed land to his Combined Societies companies.
Each member of the Georgia legislature except one had a vested interest in the Combined Society. The first bid of $250,000 for the 35 million acres was vetoed by the Governor. A second bid of $500,000 passed the legislature and was signed by the Governor.
The public defeated the legislator who approved this deal. An anti-Yahoo legislature declared the land deal had been approved by fraud. Yazoo supporters defended the sale and argued those purchasing land should be assured their land purchases would not be taken away by legislative actions. In George, many leading anti-Yazooists owned slaves. Many prominent Northerners did not wish to help the slave owning anti-Yahooists. Anti-Yahooists were mostly Democrats-Republicans who believed a state legislature had the ability to invalidate a corrupt contract.
President Thomas Jefferson offered a compromise that Congress accepted. The Federal government bought the land at a portion of what local claimants desired to receive as payment. Some anti-Yahooists thought this partially gave in to corruption. Some Yahooists were upset the full amounts were not paid. This created a split in the
Democratic-Republican Party.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Yahooists. The Court stated it could not consider the motivations of legislators and could not determine if their motives were corrupt.
The ruling made it harder to prevent public corruption. By courts ruling they should not introduce political activities in the legislative process, they stated they could not do not do anything about legislative corruption.
When the U.S formed, there was a law passed on bribes to judges, customs officers, and tax officers. There were no laws against bribes to other public offices such as Congress and legislators.
In 1818, U.S. Rep. Lewis Williams was charged with accepting a $500 bribe. There was a division of opinion between using “heavy handed” measures such as the British was done, versus those who saw a need to create integrity in office. The House found the person who made the allegations against Rep. Williams, John Anderson, guilty of contempt from his testimony before the Speaker. Anderson sued for false imprisonment, assault, and battery. The U.S. Supreme Court in Anderson v. Dunn ruled that Congress had powers to create its own contempt measures but that imprisonment could not last past legislative adjournment. the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled Congress had no power to punish bribery that happened outside of legislative jurisdiction.
Several states created laws on bribery, extortion and voting buying (limited to getting a legislature to vote a certain way and not covering getting a legislator to help pass a law.) These laws were seldom enforced then. There were different results in some cases as it was debated if a person claiming he had no “corrupt intent” could accept what otherwise looked like a bribe or extortion.
Most states made bribing legislators a crime after the 1820s.
Michigan State Rep. James Randall was determined in a Michigan Supreme Court decision to have shown no evidence of bribing other legislators by providing them with food and alcohol. Yet the Evening News newspaper could legally print articles that described these actions are corrupt.
Tammany Hall boss William Tweed was convicted of corruption as the court determined the Attorney General was allowed to make these charges even if they had rarely had similar charges before.
There were no criminal convictions of bribes in the 1797-1798 Galph Affair, no charges made against War Secretary Simon Cameron, or in the Credit Mobilier case in 1872, nor in the Grant Administration scandals. Some people resigned or left office and some continued in office.
Scandals emerged concerning bribing state legislators in electing U.S. Senators in Pennsylvania, California, Ohio, Kansas, Arkansas, and Montana. No censures resultd although ten Senators resigned.
State Sen. Robert McFarland dramatically changed his vote to one he had stated he would never cast. Bribery was charged. There was debate on what causes a bill to be passed. The Court determined it did not have the ability to determine what a corrupt legislative action was.
In the he Illinois Central court case, the Court determined that it was up to the legislature to define what legislative corruption was and how it should be punished.
The role of lobbyists came under debate. Wisconsin in 1896 defined corrupt actions by lobbyists as personal solicitation of influence. The law allowed lobbyists to engage in providing testimony, arguments, facts, and petitions.
Vermont required lobbying work to go to a legislative committee or to the entire legislature and not just to one legislator\
California made it a felony for a lobbyist to use bribery, intimidation, promise of rewards, or other dishonest means to influence a legislator/
A Nebraska law found lobbying as “corrupt in nature and against public policy” although it did not clearly sate what those actions. It did seem to be against paying a legislator to act in a desired manner.
Massachusetts created a lobbying registration law. Wisconsin, Maryland, and then other states followed.
The 20th century had an increase in cases charging lobbyists with bribery.
State courts began convicting public officials for accepting a bribe even if they did not intend to let the bribe influence behavior.
In the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo, the Court found campaign contributions limits had validity but that limiting campaign expenditures did not.
The U.S. Supreme Court in the 1999 Sun Diamond case ruled that prosecutors had to establish that giving an official a gift was in anticipation of a particular act by that official.
The 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United was that the First Amendment protected the right of speech through campaign spending an that there was no constitutional goal to be accomplished by limiting campaign ads. One may spend unlimited money on campaigns except one can not make a direct offer for an official action and any campaign contribution limits must be followed.
The author argues our democracy needs to find a concept of corruption. If it is not addressed, it will exist. There are new power dynamics resulting from the Citizens United decision. New laws should be enacted to restrain these new power influences.
Anyone wanting to reflect on the current state of legislative gridlock at the national level, and maybe other levels, or the majority losing out to a minority view or group, needs to read this book and brood over it for awhile
What this book addresses affects us all and is worth the read.
What this book mostly focuses on is bribes and gifts, and sometimes they are one of the same.
Throughout history, especially in Europe, giving gifts to ambassadors from other countries was traditional. It was expected in all royal courts, with the exception of Holland. Of course, something, perhaps a favor, was expected in return, even though it was not stated. This may have been corruption per se, but it was the ritual, for in 18th century Europe, being composed of monarchies rather than democracies, bribery was the norm. Britain, for example, was both noble and corrupt, but they didn't care.
This book is about corruption, starting from when the United States was first an independent country, from the Constitution Convention, up to the present time, and how we handled this vice throughout our history.
King Louis XVI of France gave Ben Franklin a snuffbox, with a portrait of the king circled by 408 diamonds. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, received a horse from the King of Spain. Were these gifts, showing tokens of appreciation and goodwill, or a bribe, expecting something in return at a later date? Since both officials accepted these gifts, is it acceptable? What does that make them?
If the gift is expensive enough, that king may expect a favor from the country the ambassador represents in return, and that ambassador may be expected to see it through. Such dealings are dangerous, and the founding fathers knew this. In the first part of the book, the history and controversy of this dilemma is given. When an elected official serves the people, he must serve only the people (country, state, district) and must forego any and all private interests.
Back in ancient Greece, Plato, of Plato's Republic, spoke out against such dealings, and the Constitutional Convention of the new United States agreed.
Corruption is defined as the act of an official who uses his position in office for his own private and personal gain at the expense of the public whom he is elected to serve.
This is what this country has been founded upon, anti-corruption. The people administering it cannot be bought by any entity, be it another country, corporation, individual, or any other private interest.
Any gift that an official receives must be presented to Congress for approval. The drawback is, most of the time, it is approved.
What is bribery? What constitutes corruption? Herein lies the theme of the book.
Ms. Teachout points out the complexities of defining a bribe. This is because many officials, despite the law, accepted bribes and gifts, and participated in "insider trading," (meaning land deals on the then frontier, in one case known as Yazoo) and when they were caught, they had lawyers, or cited laws themselves that their actions were not necessarily illegal, so they got off scot free. Loopholes are always found, and the defendants took advantage of them.
Usually, its the way the law itself was written, the very words in which the defendants can compare, or word their own actions literally against the very words in which the law was written. If some of these phrases were the defendant is accused is absent, then he can conclude that his action were not illegal, and his career, and freedom, is saved.
Before going any further, I would like to point out there were cases, in which Ms. Teachout has mentioned in her book, where an official was bribed, and he not only refused it but reported it to his superiors. The briber was then arrested, taken to court, and received a jail sentence. This shows that in the early days of American history, many, maybe even most officials were men of integrity.
Back then some punishments for either offering or accepting a bribe was severe. Punishments in some states included lengthy prison sentences, and in one state, hard labor. Also, that person can never run for office again.
In many states, lobbying, a common practice at the national capitol today, was prohibited. Lobbyists, in some rare cases, do help the public, but in most cases, they extract money and favors, i.e. tax breaks, for the group they represent, such as corporations. Lobbyists, incidentally, do get paid large salaries for their services. The best candidates for lobbyists are retired politicians, and they make a lot more money than they ever did in office.
Why do corporations finance elections? Because no other entity can afford to do so. Elections are becoming more expensive, and money from the public to finance it is not enough, so they, the politicians, have to turn to large entities. Of course, these entities will want something in return for their contributions, like tax breaks, or leniency towards laws protecting the environment.
This is the problem we have today. Judge Anthony Kennedy declares that citizens are suppose to use money to achieve personal benefits in the public sphere. Citizens United stands for unlimited corporate spending to get what they want from the government, legally or otherwise. Wealthy individuals have more political power. If one has no money, he's not so lucky. Before, one can get a lawyer to correct a wrong in the system, but if one goes against an entity with a lot of money, he or she hasn't got a chance.
So, in this book, cases are presented, and the definition of bribery turns out to be more controversial and complex than imagined, and much of the time, the official can get away with being bribed; i.e. if there was on spoken or written agreement, then the gift was not a bribe. There are many other cases.
Ms. Teachout also warns that, like the Roman Empire, this country is doomed to lose its democracy. What we will become isn't mentioned, but she hints that it is not good. The author, however, does offer a solution. 1) Outlaw former politicians becoming lobbyist. I myself feel that lobbying should be banned all together. 2) Design a system on how to fund campaigns, and 3) Fight against monopolies by promoting more antitrust laws.
At the end of the book are two appendices, the first listing all the anti-corruption laws in the constitution and the second listing some major anti-corruption laws passed in the 19th and 20th centuries.
If you are a political science major, a politician who wants to run for office on an anti-corruption platform, or a lawyer who is worried about where we are headed, I do recommend this book, and read it more than once. Also, most of all, one has to practice what they preach. If this democracy is to survive, we have to have a major house cleaning operation.






