Kentucky Politician Files Lawsuit Claiming a First Amendment Right to Accept Bribes

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Screen Shot 2015-09-25 at 3.36.09 PM

It’s a rare and precious moment when a politician does something which perfeclty demonstrates what he or she really thinks about democracy and power. This is one of those times.

From the Intercept:

The Supreme Court, in its Citizens United decision, ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts in elections. Now politicians in Kentucky are claiming they have a Constitutional right to receive gifts from lobbyists.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Republican Kentucky state Sen. John Schickel, along with two Libertarian political candidates, are suing to overturn state ethics laws, claiming that the campaign contribution limit of $1,000 and a ban on gifts from lobbyists and their employers are a violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The lawsuit notes that lobbyists and the employers of lobbyists are prohibited by Kentucky law from inviting legislators to parties, offering gifts, or paying for food for legislators. “This infringes on the legislator’s, lobbyist’s, and employer of lobbyist’s right to freedom of association, and freedom of speech,” Schickel claims in the suit.

Kentucky’s ethics laws were passed in 1992 after an FBI investigation exposed a number of local politicians selling their votes.

Corporations have increasingly turned to new interpretations of the First Amendment as a legal strategy. Bond-rating agencies that gave high grades to toxic mortgage-backed securities claimed in court that doing so was their First Amendment right. Lobbyists have argued that food-labeling laws undermine the meat industry’s right to free speech. And similarly, AT&T recentlyargued that net neutrality violates the ISP industry’s First Amendment rights.

Two words: Banana Republic.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Brockland A.T.

    Why it this not surprising…

    Political ethics needs revamping anyway. For example, if one were an organic farmer and elected to office, then regulated honestly and successfully in favour of organic farming, removing regs and subsidies benefiting chemical agriculture, there would likely be charges of conflict of interest from the Monsanto industry.

    The system is designed to hide its real machinery behind closed doors. Politicians aren’t really well positioned to be anything but empty-headed lawyers, although you’d think a lawyers making laws would be a conflict of interest too.

  • KAI!

    Why not? Party in the “free market”!