Republic, Lost_ How Money Corrupts Congress--And a Plan to Stop It - Lawrence Lessig [150]
6. As will become clear in the balance of this book, the term dependence corruption describes the process of governance. It doesn’t point to a particular tainted result. It is thus distinct from the three end-state types of corruption described by Burke, quid pro quo, monetary influence, and distortion, in the sense that it could exist even if there were none of these three end-state corruptions present. See Thomas F. Burke, “The Concept of Corruption in Campaign Finance Law,” Constitutional Commentary 14 (1997): 127, 131.
7. See Godfrey Davies, “Charles II in 1660,” Huntington Library Quarterly 19 (1956): 245, 254–55. (“For about two years, 1654 to 1656, Charles lived at Cologne, in moderate comfort so long as the French paid him a pension.”) See also Clyde L. Grose, “Louis XIV’s Financial Relations with Charles II and the English Parliament,” Journal of Modern History 1 (1929): 177, 204.
8. As Pierce Butler described at the convention, “A man takes a seat in parliament to get an office for himself or friends, or both; and this is the great source from which flows its great venality and corruption.” Notes of Robert Yates (June 22, 1787), in Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 1, ed. Max Farrand, 1966, 379, quoting Butler.
Chapter 2. Good Questions, Raised
1. Nena Baker, The Body Toxic (New York: North Point Press, 2008), 153.
2. Ibid., 142.
3. Ibid.
4. House of Representatives, Congress of the United States, Committee on Energy and Commerce (2009).
5. Denise Grady, “In Feast of Data on BPA Plastic, No Final Answer,” New York Times, Sept. 6, 2010, D1, available at link #4.
6. Baker, The Body Toxic, 155, quoting Pete Mayers.
7. Grady, “In Feast of Data on BPA Plastic.”
8. Baker, The Body Toxic, 142.
9. Trevor Butterworth, “Science Suppressed: How America Became Obsessed with BPA,” Statistical Assessment Service, June 12, 2009, available at link #5. See also Gina Kolata, “Flaws in the Case Against BPA,” New York Times, June 30, 2009, posted to TierneyLab, available at link #6.
10. “Spin the Bottle,” Harper’s, Dec. 2009, at link #7.
11. Baker, The Body Toxic, 144.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Kevin Stein et al., “Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates of Beliefs Regarding Cancer Risks,” Cancer 110 (2007): 1141, available at link #8.
15. The most significant biologic effect here is damage to DNA. As Devra Davis writes, the “first time anyone had seen direct evidence that cell-phone-type radiation adversely affected DNA” was 1994. Devra Davis, Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family (New York: Dutton Adult, 2010), 229. Since then there have been many other studies, including an “extraordinary review” that concluded “cell phone radiation does damage DNA.”
16. Frank Jordans, “Study on Cell Phone Link to Cancer Inconclusive,” available at link #9. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently concluded that the radio frequency used by cell phones is possibly carcinogenic. See Press Release No. 208, May 31, 2011, available at link #10.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Davis, Disconnect, 229.
20. Anke Huss, Matthias Egger, Kerstin Hug, Karin Huwiler-Müntener, and Martin Röösli, “Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies,” Environmental Health Perspectives 115 (2007): 1, 3.
21. Ibid.
22. See generally Dennis F. Thompson, “Understanding Financial Conflicts of Interest,” New England Journal of Medicine 329 (1993): 573; “Conflicts of Interest,” Responsible Conduct of Research, available at link #11 (last visited June 21, 2011); Michael McDonald, “Ethics and