Restoring Accountability to Curb Government Corruption

The Threat of Corruption to the Constitutional Republic

Corruption within government institutions erodes public trust, undermines the Constitutional Republic, and threatens the rule of law. The United States, founded on principles of accountability and justice, cannot afford to let corrupt practices fester. While eliminating corruption entirely may be unrealistic, as human nature often tests boundaries, we can significantly deter it by enforcing strict penalties and ensuring no one is above the law. The Founders embedded mechanisms in the Constitution to address treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors, intending for these penalties to be applied rigorously. Yet, in recent decades, lax enforcement, driven by political considerations, has allowed corruption to flourish. There should be no consideration for party, only adherence to the Constitution and law. This includes judges who thwart the Constitution for their own political agendas. To restore integrity, we must recommit to prosecuting and punishing wrongdoers while safeguarding due process, avoiding the excesses of authoritarian regimes.

Constitutional Safeguards Against Corruption

The Constitution provides a clear framework for addressing corruption. Article III, Section 3 defines treason as levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, with penalties including death upon conviction. Article II, Section 4 establishes impeachment for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," ensuring even the highest officials face consequences. These provisions reflect the Founders' understanding that unchecked power invites abuse. Historical precedent, such as the Whiskey Rebellion trials of 1794, where President Washington pursued legal action against insurgents, demonstrates early commitment to enforcing these principles. However, modern reluctance to prosecute powerful figures, often due to partisan loyalties, has weakened this legacy.

The Crossfire Hurricane Case: A Case Study in Accountability

Consider the 2016 Crossfire Hurricane investigation, initiated by the FBI under the Obama administration to examine alleged ties between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia. Declassified documents and the 2019 Inspector General report revealed significant irregularities, including the use of unverified intelligence and improper surveillance of campaign associates like Carter Page. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires strict oversight for surveillance warrants. Violations of these standards, particularly when targeting political opponents, raise serious questions about abuse of power. If such actions were undertaken with intent to undermine the Constitutional Republic, they could arguably meet the constitutional threshold for treason or high crimes, warranting severe penalties. Party affiliation must not shield such misconduct; only the Constitution and law should guide accountability.

The Consequences of Leniency

Yet, no senior officials faced criminal prosecution for these actions. This leniency sends a dangerous message: political elites can act with impunity. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Nixon v. United States (1993) clarified that legal accountability applies to all, rejecting claims of absolute immunity for public officials. Similarly, Clinton v. Jones (1997) affirmed that even sitting presidents are subject to civil suits for unofficial conduct. These precedents underscore that no one is above the law, yet political considerations often shield wrongdoers from justice. When powerful figures escape accountability, it emboldens others to exploit their positions, perpetuating a cycle of corruption.

Judicial Accountability and the Rule of Law

Judicial misconduct further exacerbates this problem. Judges who prioritize political agendas over constitutional fidelity undermine the rule of law. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, rooted in 28 U.S.C. § 455, requires judges to recuse themselves from cases where impartiality might be questioned. Yet, instances of judges issuing rulings that appear to favor partisan interests, such as selective interpretations of constitutional provisions, erode public confidence. The Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009) emphasized that judicial bias violates due process, underscoring the need for impartiality. Judges who thwart the Constitution for political gain should face disciplinary action, including potential impeachment under Article III, to ensure accountability across all branches.

Enforcing Penalties with Impartiality

To break this cycle, we must enforce penalties consistently, regardless of party. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) independence is critical to this effort. The DOJ’s guidelines emphasize impartiality, as seen in United States v. Nixon(1974), where the Court compelled the release of evidence despite executive privilege claims. Prosecutors must pursue cases against corrupt officials without fear of political backlash, as selective enforcement undermines credibility. For instance, the 1980s Iran-Contra affair saw convictions of several Reagan administration officials, but subsequent pardons diluted accountability. Such outcomes, often driven by partisan loyalty, fuel public cynicism and weaken deterrence.

Balancing Accountability with Due Process

However, enforcement must respect due process. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee fair trials and legal protections, ensuring accountability does not devolve into political persecution. The Soviet Union’s gulags, where dissenters were punished without trial, serve as a cautionary tale. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that even in national security cases, citizens retain habeas corpus rights. Robust legal proceedings, with evidence presented openly, prevent abuse while legitimizing convictions. This balance distinguishes the justice of a Constitutional Republic from authoritarian retribution.

Legal Standards and Systemic Reforms

Critics may argue that aggressive prosecution risks politicizing the judiciary or chilling legitimate governance. Yet, the solution lies in clear legal standards, not inaction. The Bribery Act of 1962 and the Ethics in Government Act of 1978provide frameworks for prosecuting corruption while distinguishing official duties from criminal acts. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. United States (2024) on presidential immunity emphasized that immunity applies only to core constitutional functions, not unofficial or criminal conduct. This distinction ensures accountability without hampering lawful governance, provided judges and prosecutors adhere strictly to the law, not party lines.

The Role of Penalties in Deterrence

Public trust hinges on visible consequences. When officials engage in corrupt acts, such as misusing surveillance powers or accepting bribes, penalties must be proportionate. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines recommend substantial prison terms for crimes like bribery or fraud, reflecting their harm to society. Treason, given its existential threat, carries the ultimate penalty under 18 U.S.C. § 2381. While death sentences are rare, their availability underscores the gravity of betraying the nation. Historical cases, like the 1953 execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for espionage, illustrate that severe penalties can deter catastrophic breaches of trust.

Preventive Measures and Transparency

Beyond punishment, systemic reforms can prevent corruption. Strengthening oversight, as mandated by the Inspector General Act of 1978, ensures agencies like the FBI adhere to legal standards. Transparency, such as public disclosure of FISA applications post-investigation, builds trust. Whistleblower protections, upheld in Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean (2015), encourage reporting of misconduct. These measures, coupled with rigorous prosecution, create a culture of accountability, but only if applied impartially across party lines.

Learning from History and Global Examples

Skeptics may claim that corruption is inevitable, citing historical examples like the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s. While human nature includes greed, robust enforcement alters incentives. Studies, such as those by Transparency International, show that countries with strong anti-corruption measures, like Denmark, experience lower corruption levels. The U.S. can achieve similar results by leveraging its constitutional and legal frameworks, ensuring no one escapes scrutiny due to political affiliation.

The Stakes of Inaction

The Crossfire Hurricane case exemplifies the stakes. If officials knowingly misused authority to spy on a political campaign, they violated the public’s trust and the Constitution’s protections. Failure to prosecute such acts, regardless of the party involved, normalizes corruption and invites further abuses. The Durham Report (2023) criticized the FBI’s handling of the investigation, yet without legal consequences, its findings risk becoming mere rhetoric. Justice demands action, not just reports, and that action must be blind to party.

A Call for Constitutional Fidelity

Restoring accountability requires courage to confront powerful interests. Politicians, fearing electoral fallout, often prioritize expediency over principle. Judges, swayed by ideology, may deviate from constitutional mandates. Citizens must demand better, supporting leaders and jurists who uphold the rule of law without partisan bias. The Founders envisioned a Constitutional Republic where justice prevails over politics. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Since humans are fallible, we must enforce the laws that guard against their worst impulses, holding all accountable, from officials to judges, under the Constitution.

Safeguarding the Republic

In conclusion, curbing government corruption demands a return to constitutional principles. By prosecuting and punishing wrongdoers, respecting due process, and implementing systemic reforms, we can deter abuse and restore trust. The Constitution’s penalties for treason and high crimes exist for this purpose, and no party affiliation should influence their enforcement. Cases like Crossfire Hurricane remind us of the cost of inaction. No one, from the highest official to the most influential judge, should escape accountability. Only through resolute, impartial enforcement can we honor the Founders’ vision and safeguard our Constitutional Republic for future generations.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”



Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.