Article by George D. Brown
A central question in the ongoing debate over the future of the American political system is how to deal with public corruption. This Article first examines the dominant theme of the last thirty years: a relatively hard-line approach that Professor Brown refers to as the “post-Watergate consensus.” In recent years, however, this approach has been subject to growing criticism. Focusing on such issues as the independent counsel controversy and the debate over criminalization of government ethics, Professor Brown then turns to what can be viewed as the “counterrevolutionary” critique. Against this background, he considers the United States Supreme Court's contribution to the debate. Starting with the recent Sun-Diamond and Salinas cases, and drawing from decisions in areas ranging from extortion to honoraria bans to patronage, Professor Brown contends that the Court's decisions lend substantial support to the counterrevolutionary stance. He concludes by considering the question of whether future judicial and legislative developments will favor the counterrevolutionary thrust, or whether elements of synthesis and compromise will emerge.
About the Author
George D. Brown. Professor of Law, Boston College Law School. A.B. 1961, Harvard University; LL.B. 1965, Harvard Law School.
Citation
74 Tul. L. Rev. 747 (2000)