In the first half of his lecture on The Revolution so 1913, Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo argues several points on the corruption and process of the election of United States Senators prior to the 17th Amendment being passed. While many politicians were in favor of the 17th Amendment, other politicians were skeptical that it would prevent the corruption already present in the current system. The passage of the 17th Amendment meant a strengthened system of checks and balances because it placed the ultimate decision of Senate representation with the people of the state instead of a few elected officials. Originally the Constitution of the United States stated that each state’s legislature would elect their two Senators. (Federalism) As early as 1826, issues began to surface regarding how U.S. Senators were elected and also how a vacant Senate seat was filled. For example, in 1835, Senator Spring of Maine resigned after ignoring his state’s legislative instructions to vote against the Bank of the United States.1 Shortly after this incident seven Southern State Senators were forced to vacate their Senate seats due to their refusal to vote against the Bank of the U.S. as the state legislatures proposed. Events such as these caused the Senate election process to be called into question along with the power of state legislature’s influence as it pertained to the impact of vacant Senate seats and the process by which those seats were filled.2 DiLorenzo claims the 17th Amendment to be a pointless addition to the Constitution because whether the Senators are elected by a popular vote of the people or the State Legislatures there will always be bribery and corruption. Some critics also argue that the 17th Amendment only served to shift the influence and power from the state legislatures to special interest groups. DiLorenzo in essence mocks the people in favor of the 17th Amendment by citing examples of how democracy actually breeds corruption and