Conor here: Thomas Neuburger in the following piece focuses on the scourge of lobbyists in DC. Zoom out a little, and I think what he\u2019s getting at is the two-tiered justice system for the economic elite and the rest of us. Powerful lobbyists crafting legislation that benefit the ruling class seems to me a symptom of the wider problem of an entire social system geared around exploitation and the worship of money. And with capital prioritized over all else, we\u2019re getting radical change (albeit not the type Neuburger calls for) with increasingly undemocratic systems everywhere\u2014from the workplace to the university to all levels of government.<\/p>\n
One silver lining to the Trump Accelerationists moving fast and breaking things is that when the deregulated casino crashes and burns, it might leave a small opening for the type of radical change Neuburger is calling for\u2014and preferably a lot more than just getting rid of lobbyists\u2014 as long as people don\u2019t get hoodwinked by \u201chope and change\u201d again.<\/p>\n
By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published at <\/i>God\u2019s Spies<\/a>.<\/i><\/strong> Today is throwback day. On the theme of amending the Constitution without passing amendments, I offer the piece below. I wrote it in 2015, when the world was young and Russians were not irredeemably evil (see Mission: Impossible \u2014 Ghost Protocol or X Men: First Class), and Sanders, we thought, might do what Obama wouldn\u2019t.<\/em><\/p>\n It leans on a Time magazine<\/a> piece by Gary Hart, a Democratic politician to the left of 1980s centrists. Hart ran for president in the 1988 contest but was felled by a scandal involving an affair<\/a>. (The not-so-young may recall Donna Rice. By the way, it looks like Hart was set up, by no less than the infamous<\/a> Lee Atwater. See this account of an Atwater deathbed confession<\/a> involving Hart.) In the piece Hart contends that lobbying has become \u201cthe fourth branch of government and uses data from 2014 (updated below).<\/em><\/p>\n But Hart also raises a larger point \u2014 What is corruption? That question is the reason I wrote the original piece. In it I also attempted to tackle a solution to U.S corruption. Turns out our answer is the same one Hercules chose \u2014 Noah\u2019s flood. I still think that\u2019s the best fix, and that some alive will be seeing it. Not completely good news.<\/em><\/p>\n Below is the piece I wrote then, cut down and lightly edited. It was originally published<\/a> at Howie Klein\u2019s Down With Tyranny. Enjoy.<\/em><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n But first, two definitions. The Augean Stables is a reference to the Fifth Labor<\/a> of Hercules, one of the Twelve<\/a> (click to read the context). The task was to clean the king\u2019s stables, which housed 1,000 cattle and which hadn\u2019t been cleaned in 30 years, the life of the man who owned it. Cleaned of what? Surely you know<\/a>:<\/p>\n [T]he livestock were divinely healthy (immortal) and therefore produced an enormous quantity of dung. These stables had not been cleaned in over 30 years, and over 1,000 cattle lived there. However, Heracles succeeded by rerouting the rivers Alpheus and Peneus to wash out the filth.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The second definition \u2014 corruption. Most think of corruption as an outcome that\u2019s perverted for the sake of money. Hart correctly says, not so:<\/p>\n From Plato and Aristotle forward, corruption was meant to describe actions and decisions that put a narrow, special, or personal interest ahead of the interest of the public or commonwealth. Corruption did not have to stoop to money under the table, vote buying, or even renting out the Lincoln bedroom. In the governing of a republic, corruption was self-interest placed above the interest of all\u2014the public interest.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Corruption is \u201cself-interest placed above the interest of all,\u201d or in some cases, one\u2019s legal or contractual obligation. [Hart\u2019s work comes a year after Zephyr Teachout wrote her book on the subject<\/a>, reaching the same idea.]<\/p>\n Thus, for example, some college football referees and refereeing groups are obviously corrupt. When Conference A plays Conference B using Conference B\u2019s referees, and year after year the bad calls go Conference B\u2019s way, especially with the game on the line, the referees are corrupt.<\/p>\n Are they betraying their obligation for money? Likely not. Are they betraying their obligation in order to satisfy animus against Conference A, or to make sure the \u201chome teams\u201d win? That\u2019s an obvious explanation, and by his definition (and mine), that\u2019s indeed corrupt.<\/p>\n Or take another situation. By this definition, the Supreme Court since at least 2000 and likely before has acted corruptly, if the definition is \u201cself-interest placed above the interest of all.\u201d No legal analysis of Bush v. Gore passes the \u201cupholds the interest of all\u201d test \u2014 the Republicans on the Court simply put a Republican (the home team candidate) in the White House because they could. Nor do their major decisions around money and corporate rights, like Citizens United or Buckley v. Valeo<\/a>, the 1976 Burger Court decision that lifted restrictions on campaign contributions, and its follow-up, First National Bank of Boston vs. Bellotti<\/a>, whose majority opinion was authored by Lewis Powell, of the infamous Powell memo.<\/p>\n By this definition \u2014 perverting an outcome to benefit a group in which one has a personal interest \u2014 the Supreme Court could be thought to have acted corruptly in each case mentioned above. It was likely corrupt in Buckley, Citizens United, and First National Bank of Boston, and certainly corrupt in Bush v. Gore, where Republican justices favored a Republican candidate for president over a Democratic one on no defensible grounds.<\/p>\n The Court wasn\u2019t metaphorically \u201ccorrupt.\u201d It was corrupt by definition.<\/p>\n The Systemic Corruption of the U.S. Government<\/strong><\/p>\n Hart\u2019s piece is an interesting Time magazine essay<\/a>, and also a long section from his new book, The Republic of Conscience<\/a> (I don\u2019t support Amazon, so no Amazon link). I don\u2019t want to quote a ton of it, since its main argument is likely familiar to you. But he makes a systemic point in a way that seems original; that is, he puts pieces together to make a bigger whole than most of us were aware of. For example, it\u2019s likely that the \u201carmy of lobbyists\u201d we all hate aren\u2019t a perversion of government \u2014 they are government.<\/p>\n A few notable sections (all emphasis mine):<\/p>\n From Plato and Aristotle forward, corruption was meant to describe actions and decisions that put a narrow, special, or personal interest ahead of the interest of the public or commonwealth. Corruption did not have to stoop to money under the table, vote buying, or even renting out the Lincoln bedroom. In the governing of a republic, corruption was self-interest placed above the interest of all\u2014the public interest.<\/p>\n By that standard, can anyone seriously doubt that our republic, our government, is corrupt? There have been Teapot Domes and financial scandals of one kind or another throughout our nation\u2019s history. There has never been a time, however, when the government of the United States was so perversely and systematically dedicated to special interests, <\/strong>earmarks, side deals, log-rolling, vote-trading, and sweetheart deals of one kind or another.<\/p>\n What brought us to this? A sinister system combining staggering campaign costs, political contributions, political action committees, special interest payments for access, and, most of all, the rise of the lobbying class.<\/p>\n Worst of all, the army of lobbyists that started relatively small in the mid-twentieth century has now grown to big battalions of law firms and lobbying firms of the right, left, and an amalgam of both. And that gargantuan, if not reptilian, industry now takes on board former members of the House and the Senate and their personal and committee staffs. And they are all getting fabulously rich.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Gargantuan numbers of lobbyists with gargantuan amounts of money \u2014 there\u2019s a point where corruption of government on that scale systemically changes government itself.<\/p>\n A Fourth Branch of Government<\/strong><\/p>\n For Hart, the movement of office-holders and their staffs between lobbying firms and government is not a \u201crevolving door\u201d to government; that revolving door is government. Hart makes his point by looking at the lobbying firm WPP, the largest of three giant lobbying conglomerates. WPP isn\u2019t just a lobbying firm, it\u2019s an international conglomerate of firms that wields enormous power and wealth. When one lobbying firm has billings of nearly $75 billion, you can \u201cbuy committees,\u201d not just individual votes; and you can \u201cset agendas\u201d rather than just pass laws.<\/p>\n [Recent numbers: According to Open Secrets, $4.4 billion<\/a> was spent on lobbying in 2024, another new high. There are 525 members of Congress. That\u2019s over 8 million each, and it doesn\u2019t count additional spending to defeat opponents. AIPAC alone spent over $100 million<\/a> defeating candidates in 2024; this isn\u2019t counted as lobbying.]<\/em><\/p>\n Now consider that \u201crevolving door\u201d again. Is that a door out of government and back into it, or is it a door that leads to another branch of government, one where policy decisions also get made?<\/p>\n The Other Way to Amend the Constitution<\/strong><\/p>\n All constitutions and all systems of laws are amended in two way, by formal agreement (legal process) and by informal agreement. In England, the second ways is in fact the primary way their \u201cconstitution<\/a>\u201c is amended.<\/p>\n In the U.S., if both parties enforce a law in the same way<\/em>, even though that way deviates from the way the law is written, the law is amended until forced back to its original form in practice. Thus:<\/p>\n \u25aa We have, by bipartisan agreement, revoked the Fourth Amendment. Neither party enforces it, so it\u2019s gone. Do you think you\u2019ll see it enforced in your lifetime? It\u2019s possible. Is that likely, do you think, without another radical change?<\/p>\n \u25aa We have changed the \u201crule of law\u201d to add a \u201ccircle of immunity\u201d amendment. It started with Nixon \u2014 the circle of \u201cwho cannot be prosecuted\u201d included one person, the president. That was created by Gerald Ford\u2019s pardon \u2014 which was corrupt; it got Ford the presidency \u2014 and later confirmed by Obama, who refused to indict Bush II for violating laws against torture. (Further to this, can you see Obama being indicted by anyone for extrajudicial murder, assassination really, of Americans, some of whom were mere propagandists and others completely innocent<\/a>?)<\/p>\n Under Reagan\u2013Bush I that circle expanded to include their top cabinet officers<\/a>, like Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger. Under Bush II\u2013Obama it widened again to include all money-center bankers and former senators (and outright crooks) like Jon Corzine<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u25aa Regarding that comment about Obama and his drone kills above, we\u2019ve now amended the trial-by-jury section of the Sixth Amendment<\/a> to allow executive assassination, death by executive fiat. It just awaits a Republican president to confirm it by following suit, but Congress has already approved.<\/p>\n And so on. Now we can add one more non-amendment amendment:<\/p>\n \u25aa The mega-lobbying firms are a fourth branch of government. Policy is set in these firms and passed to Congress and the executive branch to \u201cdiscuss.\u201d Once discussed and passed, those who passed these policies return to the firms to set more policy \u2014 and receive what\u2019s often the biggest payoff of their lives.<\/p>\n Was TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership, Obama\u2019s NAFTA of the Pacific] drafted first in these mega-firms before being negotiated between nations? There aren\u2019t many other reasons to get 600 lobbyists<\/a> (pdf) to meet.<\/p>\n Cleaning the Augean Stables<\/strong><\/p>\n Back to Hart\u2019s essay<\/a> and where we started, with the Augean Stables. The way out of this mess, if Greek myth is any indicator, is not incremental. You can\u2019t shovel your way out. Remember, that\u2019s a 1,000-cattle stable, and in our case a literal army of lobbyists. With a mere shovel, we\u2019d be buried to our necks before the fourth toss of filth out the window.<\/p>\n How did Hercules clean his stable? He diverted two rivers and ran the whole mess out to sea. There\u2019s a word for that equivalent today \u2014 radical change \u2014 going to the root<\/a> of the problem. As then, so now.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nakedcapitalism.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Screenshot-2025-10-23-at-7.09.08\u202fAM-1024x390.png\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
![\"Print](\"https:\/\/cdn.printfriendly.com\/buttons\/print-button-gray.png\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n