I just posted this book chapter, forthcoming in a volume on the fiftieth anniversary of Buckley v. Valeo edited by Lee Bollinger and Geoffrey Stone. Here’s the abstract:

Courts and commentators often assume that “real” corruption—quid pro quo corruption—is largely absent in modern American politics. But it isn’t. In at least one important area, government contracting, quid pro quo exchanges remain common today. In this book chapter, I first survey the empirical literature establishing the continued prevalence of corruption in government contracting. Next, I outline a theory capable of explaining why corruption might be widespread in government contracting but rare in generic legislating. On this account, corruption is most likely when concentrated benefits can be allocated to private parties by individual politicians through secretive, nonsalient means. Finally, I explore the implications for law and policy of pervasive corruption in government contracting. Courts should uphold measures aimed at preventing trades of contributions for contracts. Policymakers should extend existing pay-to-play bans to contractors’ PACs, parent firms, subsidiaries, employees, and family members. And all of us should realize that the ghost of “real” corruption has hardly been exorcised.

Intelligencer:

Kari Lake knew exactly who stole the election from her. Two months after the 2022 gubernatorial election was called for her Democratic rival, Katie Hobbs, the self-proclaimed rightful governor of Arizona took to the stage for a rally at the Orange Tree Golf Club in Scottsdale where a photo was projected behind her showing two election officials: Stephen Richer and Bill Gates. “These guys,” she said, pointing to the screen.

The crowd cheered, “Lock them up! Lock them up!”

Lake went on to allege repeatedly that Richer and Gates, both lifelong Republicans, sabotaged her candidacy by injecting 300,000 bogus early votes into Maricopa County where they administered the election and misprinting Election Day ballots. “The incredible lengths that these two bozos went to trample and steal our vote,” said Lake. “Well these guys are really, really terrible at running elections, but I found out they’re really good at lying.”

Just over a year later though, Lake declined to defend those statements in a defamation lawsuit brought by Richer, admitting that none of them were true, or as her attorney recently told the judge in the case, “We did admit everything, as far as the facts.” As for herself, Lake claimed she defaulted for the greater good. “By participating in this lawsuit, it would only serve to legitimize this perversion of our legal system and allow bad actors to interfere in our upcoming election,” she said in a video posted online. “So I won’t be taking part.”

“Stop,” said Richer with a resigned laugh prior to her default. “Just, just stop.”

Though Lake effectively conceded, the case is not over. A jury will later determine how much she owes Richer in terms of damages — he is seeking millions — as well as the removal of Lake’s defamatory social-media posts. If other recent high-profile defamation cases are any indication — such as the one against Rudy Giuliani, who was ordered to pay two Georgia election workers $148 million — the price will not be cheap. With $2.5 million in her campaign’s bank account, a hefty judgment could harm her candidacy for a highly competitive seat that could determine who controls the Senate. But Richer has already won something that’s hard to put a price on: forcing one of the last leading election deniers in the country to go under oath, only to surrender.

CNN:

Two prominent 2020 election deniers in Michigan were charged Wednesday with allegedly tampering with election equipment and sharing voter data with an unauthorized third-party.

The defendants are former Adams Township clerk Stephanie Scott and pro-Trump attorney Stefanie Lambert, who is already facing charges in a separate election-tampering case in Michigan. Lambert also recently made news for publicly leaking emails from Dominion Voting Systems as part of her ongoing efforts to discredit the 2020 presidential election results.

Scott was charged with six crimes, and Lambert was charged with three. Both women are accused of felonies, including conspiracy, and giving unauthorized access to a computer.

Washington Post:

Top Republicans, led by former president Donald Trump, are refusing to commit to accept November’s election results with six months until voters head to the polls, raising concerns that the country could see a repeat of the violent aftermath of Trump’s loss four years ago.

The question has become something of a litmus test, particularly among the long list of possible running mates for Trump, whose relationship with his first vice president, Mike Pence, ruptured because Pence resisted Trump’s pressure to overturn the 2020 election.

In a vivid recent example, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) was pressed at least six times in a TV interview Sunday on whether he would accept this November’s results. He repeatedly declined to do so, only saying he was looking forward to Trump being president again. . . .

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, in a TV interview Sunday, dodged a question about Trump’s comments on political violence. Burgum, like Scott, declined to contemplate a scenario in which the former president loses and said he was “looking forward to next January, when Vice President Harris certifies the election for Donald Trump.” . . .

Another potential Trump vice-presidential candidate, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), declined in March to say whether he would certify the 2028 election results if he were vice president.

New York Times:

The Georgia Court of Appeals will hear an appeal of a ruling that allowed Fani T. Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, to continue leading the prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump on charges related to election interference, the court announced on Wednesday.

The decision to hear the appeal, issued by a three-judge panel, is all but certain to delay the Georgia criminal case against Mr. Trump and 14 of his allies, making it less likely to go to trial before the November election. Legal experts said it may take months for the appellate court to hear the case and issue a ruling.

The court’s terse three-sentence announcement reopened the possibility that Ms. Willis could be disqualified from the biggest case of her career, and one of the most significant state criminal cases in the nation’s history.

At issue is a romantic relationship she had with Nathan J. Wade, a lawyer she hired to handle the prosecution of Mr. Trump. Defense lawyers argued that the relationship amounted to an untenable conflict of interest, and that Ms. Willis and her entire office should be removed from the case.

The full Court of Appeals order is available here.

A new Brennan Center report by Ian Vandewalker examines what implications, if any, the rise of small-donor contributions has on political polarization and fragmentation. The report evaluates the criticism that small donors may be contributing to those phenomena and concludes that “[s]mall donors are not a driving force behind political dysfunction in the United States, and the benefits of amplifying their voices far outweigh any drawbacks.” The report also argues that far from amplifying polarization and fragmentation, well-designed, publicly financed matching programs—which have the effect of broadening the donor pool—actually have the opposite effect.

From the report:

There is little evidence that the risks posed by small donors outweigh the benefits of lifting their voices. Critics have overstated their role in increasing political polarization and fragmentation. American politics has many problems. The rise of small donors is not one of them.

All donors, regardless of how much they give, tend to be more partisan and ideological than the average voter. Many small donors give in patterns indistinguishable from those of other classes of donors. And while small donor giving has increased significantly in recent years, big-money spending has grown faster. The few wealthy donors who give the largest amounts have a much greater impact on American politics and prop up more than their share of extreme, norm-breaking candidates.

Most important, whatever the role of small donors in fueling dysfunctional politics, well-designed matching programs do not make it worse. Matching programs do not simply amplify existing small donors but transform fundraising incentives to change who gives in ways that may mitigate polarization and fragmentation.

The Brennan Center has published a new guide on AI threats to election administration, authored by David Evan Harris, Lawrence Norden, Noah Praetz, and Elizabeth Howard. The guide provides an overview of the major risks AI poses to elections—including voice,… Continue reading

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has signed three election-related bills that proponents say are designed to increase election security. The bills restrict the number of voting machines available on election days, mandate more frequent audits of elections procedures, and require digital… Continue reading

The Colorado legislature recently passed a bill that would require all county jails and detention facilities to provide in-person polling stations and facilitate mail-in ballots for eligible voters. If signed by Governor Jared Polis, the legislation would make Colorado the… Continue reading

Civil rights groups representing Black voters in the Louisiana congressional redistricting case have asked the Supreme Court to stay a three-judge panel’s ruling that the state’s latest map, which creates an additional minority opportunity district, is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.… Continue reading

Louisiana has given notice that it will appeal a three-judge panel’s recent preliminary injunction against use of the state’s latest congressional maps. The panel found that the new district lines, drawn after a district court found the state needed to… Continue reading

A three-judge panel has given the Louisiana legislature a June 3 deadline for passing a new congressional map after the panel held its previous map violated the Equal Protection Clause. That prior map was enacted after a district court required… Continue reading

In the race to be Maryland’s next Senator, Prince George’s County executive Angela Alsobrooks has received the lion’s share of endorsements from Democratic party leaders. But U.S. House Rep. David Trone, who is challenging Alsobrooks for the Democratic  nomination, is… Continue reading

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: The State Election Board reprimanded Fulton County and ordered an independent election monitor Tuesday, finding that the county likely scanned over 3,000 ballots twice during the recount of the 2020 presidential election. The decision, on a 2-1… Continue reading