Via the NYT: Vermont Campaign Limits Get Cool Reception at Court

The chief justice challenged the attorney general’s assertion that money was a corrupting influence on Vermont’s political system, the state’s main rationale for its law. “How many prosecutions for political corruption have you brought?” he asked the state official.

“Not any,” Mr. Sorrell replied.

“Do you think corruption in Vermont is a serious problem?”

“It is,” the attorney general replied, noting that polls showed that most state residents thought corporations and wealthy individuals exerted an undue influence in the state.

The chief justice persisted. “Would you describe your state as clean or corrupt?” he asked.

“We have got a problem in Vermont,” Mr. Sorrell repeated.

It certainly does beg the question, does it not? If there is an obvious “problem” why haven’t any prosecutions been brought?

h/t: Althouse, who also notes the new CJ’s insistence on precise language.