11 ms·
Supreme Court strikes anti-corruption law that bars officials from taking gifts
- wnevets 2y ago> Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted gifts worth millions of dollars over 20 years [1] [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-millions-dollars-gifts-clarence-thomas.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- stiiv 2y agoWould you kindly clarify your point? A supreme court justice is not a state or local official (as I understand the terms), so the ruling won't protect him.
- meepmorp 2y agoIt's a shame you're being downvoted because you make a fine point - Thomas' ethics aren't really at issue w.r.t. the ruling here, since it applies to local officials and not people in the federal government.
- lmeyerov 2y agoIt makes his grifting look and be less bad. It matters legally, as precedent is a big part of US law, and in PR, as he can claim it is not bribery because he has now defined it to not be.
- rootusrootus 2y ago> he can claim it is not bribery because he has now defined it to not be I'd like to think that that is so blatant that it might finally come with consequences. I'd like to think that, but I don't.
- FireBeyond 2y agoIs a local official accepting a bribe inherently better than a federal official? If you were in the spotlight for your alleged corruption at the federal level, I would have a hard time considering you an objective judge of corruption at other levels of government.
- patmcc 2y agoI don't think anyone is arguing in favour of bribes for either local or federal officers - just that this particular ruling is not related (directly/legally) to the actions of the Supreme Court justices themselves.
- Hasu 2y ago> I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of bribes for either local or federal officers Not here, but six Supreme Court Justices have done exactly that.
- dudus 2y agoIt's a matter of optics and reflects the growing concern and distrust of the supreme Court in the current political US climate. Justices are in the spotlight for improper and unreported gifts. Anyone that's been in a large Corp knows a bit of bribing because of the yearly training you have to take. The fact they brushed it off as nothing to worry about and now start to make changes that loose regulations is very concerning. Even if these changes don't affect them directly.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoThe point is that by accepting gifts themselves they are biased as to whether officials should be allowed to do "after the fact".
- pxc 2y agoThe point is that the justices own histories with respect to expensive gifts is naturally going to shape their senses of what kinds of gifts are normal, problematic, unusual, etc.— as are the general norms of their peers (professionally and/or socioeconomically). And our judges are quite accustomed to receiving extremely expensive gifts basically all the time.
- threeseed 2y agoIn fact Thomas didn't believe that cruises, private jets, holidays etc constituted gifts. Which is why his disclosure of them was non-existent.
- curiousgal 2y agoIt's ironic, for a job whose only qualification is to be wise, he sure as fuck seems dumb.
- kccoder 2y agoHe's not dumb, he's corrupt.
- rayiner 2y agoI just stayed at a family friend’s ranch for a week. Is that a “gift?”
- llamaimperative 2y agoAre you a Supreme Court Justice?
- toast0 2y agoDepends on the details. My spouse was a local elected official in California, which has significant gift reporting requirements for those who hold local or state office (not federal office holders though). Staying at a friend's ranch, would likely fall under a limited gift exception [1], and would not usually be reportable: > 1. Home Hospitality. Gifts of hospitality including food, drink or occasional lodging that an official receives in an individual’s home when the individual or a member of their family is present. (Regulation 18942(a)(7).) Such hospitality provided by a lobbyist is a gift unless the home hospitality is related to another purpose unconnected with the lobbyist’s professional activities. Generally, this means functions like children’s birthday parties, soccer team parties, neighborhood barbeques, etc., where other guests attend who are not part of the lobbying process. (Regulation 18942.2.) or if the friend were not present, it may fall under this one... > 6. Long-Time Friend. Benefits received from a long-time personal friend where the gift is unrelated to the official’s duties. The exception does not apply if the individual providing the benefit to the official is involved in some manner with business before the official. (Regulation 18942(a)(18)(C).) This exception does not apply if the person providing the benefit to the official is an individual who otherwise has business before the official as set forth in Regulation 18942(a)(18)(D). Note that long-time friend is more restrictive than home hospitality while a family member is present. I would interpret this to mean that if your family friend has business related to your official position, you wouldn't need to report the stay if they were there, but if you stayed at their ranch while they weren't there, you would. Either way, if they had business with your position, I'd avoid the stay --- but my spouse was in a very limited scope office, so other than neighbors, nobody we knew had any reason to be involved in official business. [1] https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/gift-fact-sheet/Local_Gift_Fact_Sheet_Final_2023.pdf https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/gi...
- voxic11 2y agoYou are not wrong. This ruling mostly just harmonizes the law as it applies to federal and non federal officials. > 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.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- darth_avocado 2y ago> 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 I see no difference
- diffxx 2y agoI would be very happy if you streamlined the approval process for my project. vs. I will donate $20k to your reelection campaign if you streamline the approval process. Clearly the former construction could not possibly construed as an implied bribe and we shouldn't punish those who want to reward our hard working civil servants for their honorable public service. /s
- darth_avocado 2y ago> I would be very happy if you streamlined the approval process for my project. But that's not what is being compared here. The more accurate description would be: "I am very happy that you streamlined the approval process for my project, so here is $20k."
- jasonjayr 2y ago"Here is my project that's being held up by a slow approval process, btw, here is $20k for the great job you did on ${insert random unrelated former act they did}"
- nortonsdad 2y agoFacilitation payments, which as near as I can tell are line jumping bribes for things like approval processes, are specifically carved out as an exception to the US anti-bribery laws.
- lenerdenator 2y agoEven if there is some sort of difference, all it does is reinforce the impression that you need money to maintain relationships with those in politics. Then again, if I had gone to Yale or Harvard like most of the SCOTUS justices in the majority, I'd see that as part-and-parcel of existence. There's blue-blood access to government, and then there's the access that you get if you didn't happen to come up in the upper crust of the Eastern seaboard of the US.
- lenerdenator 2y agoI can absolutely see why conservative justices would like the idea of handing off this matter to the states and cities. They like the idea of being a big fish in a small pond without the great white of the DoJ lurking to bust them for outright corruption.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y agoI guess as long as the money does not come in a sack labeled, “Bribe” you are in the clear.
- justinclift 2y agoGreat number plate for a car though. ;)
- kibwen 2y ago> 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. What an utter farce.
- rootusrootus 2y agoIndeed. We grant these fine individuals a lifetime appointment to the most powerful court in the land. We pay them over a quarter million dollars a year. They need no charity, and it should be a hard requirement that they cannot accept gifts totaling more than, say, $250 from any individual person in a given year. If that is unacceptable, don't aspire to become a justice of the Supreme Court.
- ranger_danger 2y agoWhat a surprise. Of course they want to keep accepting bribes. I wish political and corporate donations were illegal.
- kristjansson 2y agoSupreme Court finds that (a) bribes and gratuities are a different crimes under federal law and (b) the specific _federal_ law that prohibits _state_ officials from accepting bribes cannot be construed to also prohibit _state_ officials from accepting gratuities. Federal officials are still barred from both, there's nothing unconstitutional about federal law barring state officials from accepting gratuities, but federal law as written currently does not. > Although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a state or local official after the official act may be unethical or illegal under other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate §666 An artifact failing to correctly implement intended requirements should be familiar around here :)
- SJMG 2y agoThis feels shamefully on the nose. Could be worth reading the opinions. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
- bishbosh 2y ago[flagged]
- Amorymeltzer 2y agoFor the Dissent by Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan
- kristjansson 2y agoBecause, as should be unsurprising, both the controversy and decision are more nuanced and more limited than the headline you're reading.
- bishbosh 2y ago[flagged]
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoIf you ignore all the nuance, then no, there's no nuance worth seeing.
- bishbosh 2y agoPlease explain the nuance I am missing.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agokristjansson explained it better than I would: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40802482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40802482
- OutOfHere 2y agoPeople don't realize what a big deal this is. It's a strong form of legalized bribery. It's game over for the USA. In other corrupt countries, no work gets done by government workers until gratuities are paid at every step. It becomes a dog-eat-dog trustless existence where anything goes. Imagine buildings and bridges keep crashing because they were made poorly, nothing is functional, and it gets only worse from there.
- office_drone 2y ago[flagged]
- red-iron-pine 2y agoFinishing the job that citizens united started. This is how democracy dies. The Americans better start using those rights they seem to wank off about, cuz if they don't they're about to get sold to the highest bidders
- dc_ist 2y agoAbout to? We're beyond "about to".
- paulryanrogers 2y agoArguably before bribes were more hidden, and when brought to light they were more often procecuted or at last shamed folks out of office. See Abe Fortas
- ein0p 2y agoWhat do you mean “in other countries”? That’s exactly how it is here in the US as well, just slightly more indirectly, in the form of “campaign donations” and “do nothing” six figure “jobs” after the official’s term ends.
- OutOfHere 2y ago> in the form of “campaign donations” Campaign donations are limited to elected officials or to those standing in an election. Now it's anyone in government. Most government works are not elected, and now they could have free reign.
- dmorgan81 2y agoThis ruling just shifts when a bribe occurs. If I had the money and wanted to affect gov't policy I'd start by "gifting" gratuities to all sorts of politicians "for your past service." Most importantly, I'd spread that information far and wide. Once it's well known that I like giving politicians gratuities and that I always give gratuities, all it takes is a conversation and the ball is rolling. I never have to say any of the words or phrases during that conversation that magically turn things into a bribe; it's understood that once the deed is done the money will be on the way. This ruling shreds the concept that even the appearance of impropriety is bad.
- rootusrootus 2y ago> the appearance of impropriety I feel like that is one of the bigger cultural shifts, particularly in politics, that has happened over the last decade. It used to be that the mere appearance of impropriety was enough to kill a political career. Now it seems like not only is the appearance irrelevant, actual evidence of impropriety is losing its effect too.
- ryandrake 2y agoYes, and in more and more cases, actual, overt, and open impropriety (not just evidence of it) serves to improve a politician's standing with the public. Nothing is out of bounds anymore. It doesn't matter what a politician does, how terrible it is: If they are doing it For The Team, then that team supports it.
- nickff 2y agoThe idea that appearance of impropriety is bad is a moral one. There are often problems when one attempts to legislate morality.
- rufus_foreman 2y ago>> If I had the money and wanted to affect gov't policy I'd start by "gifting" gratuities to all sorts of politicians "for your past service." Most importantly, I'd spread that information far and wide. Good thing you don't have the money then, because you would be going to prison. Paying a gratuity to a federal official is still a 2 year prison sentence under 18 U.S. Code § 201(c), and there are state laws against paying them to state officials. All the court did was decide that 18 U.S. Code § 666 applied only to bribes, not gratuities.
- fzeroracer 2y agoAh, so bribery is OK as long as you simply imply you will receive gratuity if you scratch my back (and then receive it afterwards), rather than receiving gratuity upfront in exchange for doing something. An astoundingly stupid ruling, but one that makes sense when you look at some of the 'gratuity' the current justices have received.
- rstat1 2y agoBut bribes already were legal. They just call it "campaign contributions".
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y agoIt's difficult to construe those as bribes in good faith. If I favor a politician, some underdog, why shouldn't I be allowed to contribute to his campaign? In what ways should I be disallowed from doing so? Is only cash disallowed? Like, if he has some guy come by and clean his pool, can I offer to do that for free, so he can spend that cash on his campaign? Is that a bribe too? Is it only bad to give campaign contributions if I'm rich? What if I don't contribute to his campaign at all, but I just find (or create) a superpac that says alot of the same things he says, so that anyone who is influenced by the superpac is likely to vote for him? If instead you insist on no private funding for campaigns, then it becomes the issue that anyone allowed to campaign is chosen by the government through its public funding qualification process. My preferred candidate may be, in practice, barred from campaigning at all.
- rootusrootus 2y agoFor a start, I would be okay with 1) limiting campaign contributions to real people, 2) capping the amount at something most middle class Americans could comfortably afford, and 3) similarly capping total contributions to any PAC. Equating money with free speech is a mistake in my view. It is explicitly saying we believe each person's value to society is strictly their net worth. For political purposes I think everyone should have an equally powerful vote, and I include campaign contributions in that.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago> similarly capping total contributions to any PAC. This is a first amendment violation. If the PAC can make the case that it is not campaigning for a particular candidate, then it's simply people exercising freedom of speech to tell others what is important to them. > Equating money with free speech is a mistake in my view. In your view, but from a scientific perspective, you're objectively wrong. Everything's fungible. Especially when we're talking about speech that occurs over mass media, which costs money to access. > For political purposes I think everyone should have an equally powerful vote When things like strategic voting are possible, it's impossible for everyone to have equally powerful votes because that would require everyone to be equally intelligent. Anyone more intelligent than you has at least the potential of voting more strategically than you do, and their interests will then dominate yours.
- JanSolo 2y agoOh dear, USA; you have a real problem with your Supreme Court enacting precedents for things that are clearly not in the interest of a succesful USA. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the last-resort, the fail-safe, the watcher of the US legal system. But somehow it has become infected with partisan BS and now we have to wonder Who watches the watchers? How do we get out of this mess?
- tssva 2y agoThe Supreme Court’s job isn’t to enact precedents that are in the interest of a successful USA. Their job is to make rulings regarding whether laws are constitutional and interpreting what laws mean when there is a question regarding how a law should be interpreted. Neither the constitution or enacted laws are always in the best interest of the USA. If that is the case it isn’t the job of the Supreme Court to change them. That is the job of the people either directly or through their elected representatives.
- feoren 2y ago> If that is the case it isn’t the job of the Supreme Court to change them. The Supreme Court changes laws all the time. Where is the line between "interpreting what laws mean" and "deciding what laws mean", i.e. changing law and making new law? The Supreme Court has been in the business of changing and making new law for a long time; this sitting court is just the worst example of it.
- rayiner 2y agoFinding new constitutional rules in “emanations from penumbras” seems extremely over that line…
- dctoedt 2y ago> Finding new constitutional rules in “emanations from penumbras” seems extremely over that line There's a difference between "finding new constitutional rules," on the one hand, versus recognizing the logical implications of existing rules, on the other. Mocking "emanations from penumbras" seems to hint at hostility to the Ninth Amendment's explicit rule that not every right and liberty must be explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. For non-lawyer readers, the "emanations" quote is from Griswold v. Connecticut, recognizing a constitutionally-based privacy right to use contraception. The complete quote is: <quote> The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.' </quote> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12276922145000050979&q=griswold+v+connecticut&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=122769221450000... at 484 (cleaned up, extra paragraphing added).
- strictnein 2y agoIf people are going to keep posting political stuff to HN, could we at least require them to flag it as such so it can be filtered out by those who prefer not to have politics creep into every last site on the internet?
- justin_oaks 2y agoUnfortunately no. I too would like each post to be categorized and tagged. And I'd like HN to allow filtering based on those tags. But that's probably not going to happen. If you want to be the kind of change you'd like to see in the world then you could find a way to filter them out. Most of us just read the title and skip over them. Others feel it necessary to click into the comments so they can complain about them.
- lamp_book 2y agoTipping culture is getting out of hand.
- bell-cot 2y agoFantasy: Some $billionaire starts mentioning his plans to give ever-so-generous "gifts", to those members of Congress who vote to enlarge the Supreme Court's number of Justices...so far that the votes of the current SC Justices are irrelevant.
- rickydroll 2y agoI'm coming to think that we shouldn't bother trying to discourage bribery. It's a common form of business in the rest of the world. What we should do, however, is make the bribery/gratuity/gift part of the public record. We all know that Congress is bought and paid for, but I want to know by whom. The only time punishment should happen is if a gift/bribe/whatever is not reported. Clarence Thomas's BS about not thinking it was a gift and didn't need reporting should subject him to significant legal penalties. [edit] Last minute thought: whenever a public official takes a bribe, they should be required to wear a sticker on their suit with the logo of the bribing organization just like Formula One racers have on their suits and cars.
- the-alchemist 2y agoIt wasn't even 5-4, it was 6-3. The basic idea, AFAICT, is that _federal_ law should not punish _state_ crimes under this specific section of the law (§666). As noted elsewhere, there might be other laws on the books for bribes, but §666 doesn't apply here. The distinction between "gratuities"/ "gifts" and "bribes" is artificial to me, as a normal person, but I understand that the law makes a distinction. I'm sympathetic to the federalism argument (every state should have anti-bribery laws so that _states_ themselves can take them to court instead of waiting for the feds!). But I don't understand why someone would explicitly write a law that tries to draw a fat line between bribes and gifts. Is that the legal equivalent of a bug? A bad law?
- nine_zeros 2y agoIt is the legal equivalent of a feature meant for a promo that led to tech debt.
- croes 2y agoThe same is legal in Germany despite the recommendation to change this. Politicians even claimed that such laws would hinder their political work.
- kstenerud 2y agoOf you want to understand why this is happening, read "The Road to Unfreedom" by Prof Timothy Snyder. https://www.amazon.com/Road-Unfreedom-Russia-Europe-America/dp/0525574468 https://www.amazon.com/Road-Unfreedom-Russia-Europe-America/...