Buying a legislator’s vote is legitimate for voters but not for paid lawyers

Evidence

Fundamentally, there can be no more basis for a lawyer to obtain the vote of a member of Congress on the basis of friend- ship, or on the basis of past, present or future favors, than there is for a lawyer to obtain a vote from a judge or a juror on the same basis. The lawyer stands on a different footing from his client. John Smith, the voter, and also the man who favors H.R. 10,000, can with propriety tell his Congressman that the price of Smith’s next vote or his next campaign contribution is the CongressmaniTs own vote for H.R. 10,000. It may be poor citisnship; it may move the Congressman to vote against, rather than for, H.R. 10,000. But it is the essence of democracy, it seems to me, that voters should be able to tell a member of Congress what they want, and to tell the member that if he disagrees, he will lose that voter’s support in the next campaign. The Washington lawyer, or any other lawyer, for that matter, is not the voter. He is retained, and paid, for professional advice and services. But when he is retained, or paid, for his influence or alleged influence over a member of Congress, regardless of the merits of the issue, he is no longer acting as a lawyer. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 300

Categorization

• XREF: Sharp definitional line for the LGST institutions thread: what marks conduct as ‘lawyering’ — merit-reasoned advocacy — versus democratic vote-buying that only a principal-voter may do. — connects to: Corrupting legislation and corrupting trials violate the same ethical duty — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 268; Lawyer-legislators acted as agents for organized interests, not mere occupational representatives. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 4119
• QUESTION: Why is John Smith’s contingent campaign contribution ‘the essence of democracy’ while the lawyer’s identical offer is disqualifying? Test the boundary cases.

Broader Connections

• Lawyer-legislators acted as agents for organized interests, not mere occupational representatives. #complicates (0.85) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 4119