Support Not Bribery

The correlation between a politicians positions and money they get from certain organization has been viewed as being a sign of corruption. Take Joe Biden and his opposition for amendments to bills that would have limited a citizen’s right to file lawsuits against companies with asbestos liability <http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/7F2795D619460BA8862574D8000FE4AA?OpenDocument>. Though the bill does have compensation mechanism (trust fund) for potential victims, it does shield companies from further lawsuits. With the mere appearance of corruption being the standard set in Buckley v Valeo in 1976, some would argue that the correlation is therefore corruption. This is not only a poor interpretation of the law; it is specious reasoning. Joe Biden may oppose these amendments because he feels it is a legislative overstep to keep citizens from exercising their rights to seek compensation for a company’s irresponsible practice. He may also believe that this right is a check on business power, which protects the citizens against potential future dangerous practices of a company when calculating liability. However, the mere support for legislation coinciding with financial support from a group that has a vested interest in legislation is not against the law; there has to be a quid pro quo, bribery. We have bribery statutes on the books and they have been exercised most recently with Senator Ted Stevens, Representative William Jefferson and Representative Duke Cunningham. Buckley v Valeo also said money is speech and groups should be allowed to support politicians that agree with them.