She received a surprisingly strong vote while losing to Gov. Andrew Cuomo at the ballot box in last week’s Democratic primary.
The Fordham University professor now may win more fans by unveiling her new book, which lashes out at the US Supreme Court and the nation’s political culture of corruption.
In her treatise, “Corruption in America from Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens United” (Harvard University Press), Zephyr Teachout argues that recent court decisions — and a lax attitude toward corruption — are putting private interests over the public good.
Teachout complains of the revolving-door practice of congressional representatives retiring and becoming lobbyists. She said the policy breeds ethical conflicts and tainted decision-making.
“In 1970 only 3 percent of senators and congress people leaving office became lobbyists; now over 50 percent do, and the numbers are growing. The likely career path of a congress person is to become a lobbyist,” she said in her book, a copy of which was obtained by The Post.
She suggested that states and the federal government should pass an “absolute ban” on lawmakers and legislative staffers taking jobs in the “influence industry.”
Teachout, who railed against Albany corruption and Cuomo’s decision to disband his Moreland anti-corruption panel, makes no mention of her political campaign in the book.
The Declaration of Independence was in part a declaration of freedom from corruption.
- Zephyr Teachout
The professor tracks how America has addressed corruption since its birth. She noted that the Founding Fathers were so concerned about corruption that they barred ambassadors from accepting gifts from foreign countries without prior congressional approval.
“The Declaration of Independence was in part a declaration of freedom from corruption,” she said.
She credits one New Yorker, former President Theodore Roosevelt, with approving laws calling for public funding of elections and banning corporate contributions.
But Teachout, like many other liberal activists, cites recent Supreme Court rulings lifting limits on campaign contributions from wealthy donors and corporations as a corrupting influence on elections. The justices ruled they’re protecting speech.
Her outrage seems selective — aimed almost exclusively at the influence of right-leaning Big Business rather than left-leaning Big Labor.
Teachout also lamented that the high court has narrowed the definition of what constitutes corruption — to proof of a specific quid pro quo, such as a politician taking a specific action in exchange for a donation.
“The Court suggests that using money to influence power is both inevitable and not troubling,” she said.
She calls for public financing of campaigns, particularly praising New York City’s campaign finance system.
“When a large campaign contributor can change the view of a representative because of the access and influences that flows from that donation, not all voices are heard equally. . . . Political equality is a foundational American principle to which courts should be attentive,” she said.