It could be wise to fire Dodd just to allow the MPAA to continue making contributions without risking interpretation as a quid pro quo. From the Hobbs Act: "It

It could be wise to fire Dodd just to allow the MPAA to continue making contributions without risking interpretation as a quid pro quo. From the Hobbs Act: "It is important to note, however, that it is irrelevant whether the public official in fact intended to hold up his or her end of the bargain--it is enough that the official had knowledge of the payor's intent to buy official acts." Supreme Count statement in McCormick v United States (1991): "The receipt of such contributions is also vulnerable under the Act as having been taken under color of official right, but only if the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act." Related analysis: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2005/11/prosecuting_cam.html http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2005/... See also Chapter 6 of http://books.google.com/books?id=gJY-i4QHHC8C&lpg=PR7&ots=E0G2ihyRu3&dq=Private%20and%20Public%20Corruption&lr&pg=PA127#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=gJY-i4QHHC8C&lpg=PR7&#3... For example, consider Case 4 (http://books.google.com/books?id=gJY-i4QHHC8C&lpg=PR7&ots=E0G2ihyRu3&dq=Private%20and%20Public%20Corruption&lr&pg=PA137#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=gJY-i4QHHC8C&lpg=PR7&#3...) which is very similar to Dodd's, and which Lowenstein argues might be considered bribery under the Hobbs Act, in light of McCormick v United States. An (opinionated) editorial on the topic: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0606.birnbaum.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0606.birnbaum...