Supreme Court wipes out anti-corruption law that bars officials from taking gifts for past favors
By: Yahoo News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to take gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had previously been awarded lucrative contracts or other government benefits thanks to the efforts of the official.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.
In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for simply taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.
"The question in this case is whether [the federal law] also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities — for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the like — that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no," said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority.
Despite his reference to token gifts such as lunches and framed photos, the federal law was triggered only by payments of more than $5,000.
But the court's conservative majority said the law in question was a "bribery statute, not a gratuities law." Kavanaugh said federal law "leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials."
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
"Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions," Jackson wrote in dissent. The law as written "poses no genuine threat to common gift giving" but it "clearly covers the kind of corrupt (albeit perhaps non-quid pro quo) payment [the mayor] solicited after steering the city contracts to the dealership."
The ruling could have a broad impact. About 20 million local and state officials are covered by the federal anti-corruption law, including officials at hospitals and universities that receive federal funds.
Justice Department lawyers told the court that for nearly 40 years, the anti-bribery law has been understood to prohibit payments to officials that "rewarded" them for having steered contracts to the donors.
The Supreme Court justices have faced heavy criticism recently for accepting undisclosed gifts from wealthy patrons. Justice Clarence Thomas regularly took lavish vacations and private jet flights that were paid for by Texas billionaire Harlan Crow. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. took a fishing trip to Alaska in 2008 aboard a private plane owned by Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire.
The high court has long held that criminal laws restricting "illegal gratuities" to federal officials require proof that the gifts were given for a specific "official act," not just because of the official's position.
The Indiana mayor was charged and convicted of taking the $13,000 payment because of his role in helping his patrons win city contracts.
Congress in 1986 extended the federal bribery law to cover officials of state or local agencies that receive federal funds. The measure made it a crime to "corruptly solicit or demand ... or accept ... anything of value of $5,000 or more ... intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business or transaction."
Prosecutors said James Snyder was heavily in debt and behind in paying his taxes when he became mayor of Portage, Ind., in 2012. The city needed new garbage trucks, and the mayor took over the required public bidding. He spoke regularly with two brothers who owned a local truck dealership that also had financial problems, and he designed the bidding process so that only their two new trucks would meet all of its standards. He also arranged to have the city buy an older truck that was on their lot.
Two weeks after the contracts were final, the mayor went to see the two brothers and told them of his financial troubles. They agreed to write him a check for $13,000 for undefined consulting services.
An FBI investigation led to Snyder's indictment, his conviction and a 21-month prison sentence.
The former mayor argued that an after-the-fact gift should not be a crime, but he lost before a federal judge and the U.S. appeals court in Chicago.
The high court agreed to hear his appeal in Snyder vs. U.S. because appeals courts in Boston and New Orleans had limited the law to bribery only and not gratuities that were paid later.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly limited the scope of public corruption laws and often in unanimous rulings. The common theme is that the justices concluded the prosecutions went beyond the law.
Last year, the court was unanimous in overturning the corruption convictions of two New York men who were former aides or donors to then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat. The court noted that one of the defendants convicted of taking illicit payments did not work for the state during that time.
Four years ago, the justices were unanimous in overturning the convictions of two aides to then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, who were charged with conspiring to shut down lanes to the George Washington Bridge into New York City. The court said they were wrongly convicted of fraud because they had not sought money or property, which is a key element of a fraud charge.
In 2016, the court overturned the corruption conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican. While the governor took $175,000 in gifts from a business promoter, he took no official actions to benefit the donor, the court said.
Calling members trolls or dishonest will cause your comments to be deleted.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted.
Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
No Memes
Tags
Who is online
644 visitors
This is going to be interesting.
There is a clear distinction between a bribe and a gift.
Some people don't see it.
as some never will
At least 3 on the Court. I wonder where they were educated?
Please specify how determine which it is at the time it is given.
Easy. Prior to any "favors" (contracts and the like) it would be considered a bribe. After the fact, it would be a gift.
that only explains pre bribe and post bribe
Wow, what a technical analysis. I wonder if it has ever occurred to anyone that this can be circumvented by conspiring to provide a “gift” once a favor has been made.
Some people need it broken down "Barney Style".
[✘]
How do you find out about any favors when it is only between the giver and the receiver?
You, or I, don't need to. If there is no communication between parties prior to the giving of the gift, it is a gift. If there is communication prior to the favor being granted, it would more than likely be construed as a bribe.
So we don't need to know if an elected (or appointed) official is taking bribes?
And if there is communication after the gift is given?
Giver: You've already accepted the $10,000 vacation that I sent you, you now OWE ME!!!!
Receiver: Or else what?
Giver: I will anonymously show the authorities that you accepted my $10,000 bribe and your career will be over.
Are you being purposefully obtuse? Your "after the gift" scenario is full of holes. Giver wouldn't be giving the gift "after" if the favor was already done. so the "you now owe me" is bullshit. If he has already received what he wanted, why would the receiver still owe him?? He already got what he wanted.
And answer your other question, bribes yes. Gifts not so much
Seems to me you are making this harder than it has to be for the sake of argument.
Not to mention, that's also extortion on the part of the 'giver'.
Those holes match your claim. Holes or not it is a legitimate scenario.
And you keep trying to make it simpler than it actually is.
It is a bribe if accepted. Or do you believe that $10,000 vacation packages are often given away freely to elected or appointed officials? Is that official required to do any due diligence to determine the purpose behind the "gift"?
Did you forget your very own example above? Plain and simple, that is extortion.
really
What is the purpose of valuable gifts to elected officials that the gifters barely know?
Why would one, that had just gotten a million dollar contract to provide new refuse trucks to a town, a short time later not give the one who got them the contract a $13,000 'gift'. I'm surprised they didn't also give $13,000 to the guy who lost the election to the mayor, as he also had fallen on hard times, hell, maybe they did, but forgot to mention that 'gift'....WTF people, this is ridiculous !!
Look at the last three cases listed in the article, and you might understand why the Court wanted some nuance. In that last case the Court overturned the conviction of Bob McDonnell but look at the damage done to his life.
How is it easy ?, and yes this opens the door, Hell, the Flood Gates are now open for out in the open BRIBERY, BECAUSE THAT IS PLAIN AND SIMPLY WHAT IT IS
Look at some of the examples given:
Last year, the court was unanimous in overturning the corruption convictions of two New York men who were former aides or donors to then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat. The court noted that one of the defendants convicted of taking illicit payments did not work for the state during that time.
Four years ago, the justices were unanimous in overturning the convictions of two aides to then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, who were charged with conspiring to shut down lanes to the George Washington Bridge into New York City. The court said they were wrongly convicted of fraud because they had not sought money or property, which is a key element of a fraud charge.
Bob McDonnell, a Republican. While the governor took $175,000 in gifts from a business promoter, he took no official actions to benefit the donor, the court said.
I think those cases are more an indicator of our broken justice system. For McDonnel, did the prosecution dig deep enough to know that he had taken no action yet ignored it so that they could get a win? I don't know, but remember the old saying that a good prosecutor could win an indictment on a ham sandwich.
I still think this ruling is not a good one overall, but that's just one guy's opinion.
Yeah, it's not all that fucking difficult. Just takes some common sense.. Oh I see the problem, common sense is in very short supply in this country.
And no, bribery is not out in the open. You completely misread what I posted. What I said was this opens the potential for an "agreement" beforehand and a gift after the project is done. I think it will be easier to hide the bribe now because the 'gift' can come at a much later time well after the 'project' has been completed and perhaps even after the person has left public office.
it sure as fck is. but i'm not sure, you, are aware of just how uncommon, it is, cause NO, it is all that difficult been joined, diff a cult to differentiate ones direction when one is constantly on the other side of issues and is usually going down the conservative route. Cause it is obvious, this ruling is paving the way for quid, pause, pro quo all day long
The GOP supreme court is seriously bent! Screw lifetime appointments!