4 ms·

As long as you get the gift after you have done the deed, it's just a gift, isn't that the ruling?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> long as you get the gift after you have done the deed, it's just a gift, isn't that the ruling? What ruling? Generally, no, accepting gifts in exchange for official actions is illegal (and punished) irrespective of whether payment is made up front or in arrears [1]. [1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-senator-robert-menendez-his-wife-and-three-new-jersey-businessmen-charged-bribery https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-senator-robert-menen...
- mikeyouse 2y ago
  The most recent supreme court ruling from a few weeks ago dramatically narrowed the Federal bribery laws; https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scop...
- iaresee 2y ago
  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf is I believe what they're referencing. And it definitely muddied the water.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Agree. But it doesn’t solely condition corruption on the timing of the payment. (We’ll have to see how it works in practice. McDonnell was similarly criticised, but wound up being much less impactful in practice [1].) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States
    - iaresee 2y ago
      Oh yea, I agree. It's a twist, but not a get-out-of-corruption-free card.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    That case doesn’t muddy the water, because it doesn’t address the requirements of bribery law at all. In the trial below, the prosecutors disavowed that they were proceeding on a bribery theory. The jury was never instructed about the required elements of bribery. The only thing the Supreme Court decided in that case was whether that specific statute encompasses a gratuity theory. That’s illegal for federal officials under a different statute that was not invoked in this case.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
cogman10 2y ago
The most recent bribery rulings have basically been that for it to be a bribe, there has to be a direct connection to the gift and the action. Practically "I am passing bill 123 because of my sponsor foo. Foo, always the best" There will be different state laws, but the federal law is particularly toothless at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States?wpr...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the federal law is particularly toothless at this point Untrue per the “legal citations” section of your own article. Scope was narrowed. But in the two times it was tested the precedent ultimately resulted in a conviction (Menendez) or upholding of punishment (Cash for Kids).
  - cogman10 2y ago
    You can still eat soup without teeth. Just because someone has been caught doesn't mean the law isn't significantly weaker than it should be. Menendez is a good example for this. This isn't the first time he's been brought up on bribery charges, it's the second. The first was dropped because of the McDonnell ruling. Really, you pretty much have to be the dumbest most corrupt politician imaginable before you are caught in this law's net. McDonnell shows what bribery can look like and it's pretty egregious. McDonnell was hosting and publicly promoting products from Star Scientific while receiving lavish gifts from them. Rolexs, loan, vacations, etc. Do you think if something that would harm Star Scientific came across McDonnell's desk he wouldn't act in their favor? Yet because he doesn't specifically say "I'm doing this for you guys" it's legal. That's why the law is toothless. So long as a politician isn't an absolute moron like Menendez, they are free to accept "gifts" from anyone for anything. They just can't then turn around and write down "Oh, ok, I'll make sure to pass bill 123 for you"... like Menendez did.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > you pretty much have to be the dumbest most corrupt politician imaginable before you are caught in this law's net I agree. But toothless means toothless. The snare still catches. The law needs to be tighter. But to do that we should be able to agree that the current law is weak. Not toothless. If it’s toothless, there is no point clamping down.
rayiner 2y ago
If we are talking about the recent Supreme Court ruling, no. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scop... Under federal law, as applicable to federal officials, there’s a distinction between bribes and gratuities. Both are illegal for federal officials, under different statutes. There is also a federal law that makes it illegal to pay bribes to a state official. But there is no corresponding federal law making it illegal to pay bribes to a state official, though most states have their own gratuities laws. This distinction between bribes and gratuities is well established in the law. Bribes are about actual corruption. Gratuities are about the appearance of corruption. A bribe can be prosecuted whether the payment is before or after the official act. But there must be some proof that the payment influenced or was meant to influence the official act. Paying a Christmas gift to your mailman is not a bribe. What happened in the recent Supreme Court case is that federal prosecutors prosecuted a state official under the federal bribery statute, where the official was paid for consulting services after allegedly steering government contracts to a trucking company. The prosecution could have tried to prove that the contracts were steered in anticipation of the later consulting work. The prosecution, however, chose not to proceed on a bribery theory. It asserted that the statute (which is titled “bribery”) applied to gratuities as well. And when the jury was instructed on the law, the jury was specifically told that it did not need to find that the official act was influenced by the anticipation of receiving future consulting business. All the Supreme Court decided was that specific statute did not cover a gratuities theory. It sent the case back to the trial court; the government can now choose to retry the person and this time try to actually prove bribery.

> long as you get the gift after you have done the deed, it's just a gift, isn't that the ruling? What ruling? Generally, no, accepting gifts in exchange for official actions is illegal (and punished) irrespective of whether payment is made up front or in arrears [1]. [1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-senator-robert-menendez-his-wife-and-three-new-jersey-businessmen-charged-bribery https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-senator-robert-menen...

mikeyouse 2y ago
The most recent supreme court ruling from a few weeks ago dramatically narrowed the Federal bribery laws; https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scop...
iaresee 2y ago
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf is I believe what they're referencing. And it definitely muddied the water.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Agree. But it doesn’t solely condition corruption on the timing of the payment. (We’ll have to see how it works in practice. McDonnell was similarly criticised, but wound up being much less impactful in practice [1].) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States
  - iaresee 2y ago
    Oh yea, I agree. It's a twist, but not a get-out-of-corruption-free card.
- rayiner 2y ago
  That case doesn’t muddy the water, because it doesn’t address the requirements of bribery law at all. In the trial below, the prosecutors disavowed that they were proceeding on a bribery theory. The jury was never instructed about the required elements of bribery. The only thing the Supreme Court decided in that case was whether that specific statute encompasses a gratuity theory. That’s illegal for federal officials under a different statute that was not invoked in this case.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

cogman10 2y ago

The most recent bribery rulings have basically been that for it to be a bribe, there has to be a direct connection to the gift and the action. Practically "I am passing bill 123 because of my sponsor foo. Foo, always the best" There will be different state laws, but the federal law is particularly toothless at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States?wpr...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the federal law is particularly toothless at this point Untrue per the “legal citations” section of your own article. Scope was narrowed. But in the two times it was tested the precedent ultimately resulted in a conviction (Menendez) or upholding of punishment (Cash for Kids).
- cogman10 2y ago
  You can still eat soup without teeth. Just because someone has been caught doesn't mean the law isn't significantly weaker than it should be. Menendez is a good example for this. This isn't the first time he's been brought up on bribery charges, it's the second. The first was dropped because of the McDonnell ruling. Really, you pretty much have to be the dumbest most corrupt politician imaginable before you are caught in this law's net. McDonnell shows what bribery can look like and it's pretty egregious. McDonnell was hosting and publicly promoting products from Star Scientific while receiving lavish gifts from them. Rolexs, loan, vacations, etc. Do you think if something that would harm Star Scientific came across McDonnell's desk he wouldn't act in their favor? Yet because he doesn't specifically say "I'm doing this for you guys" it's legal. That's why the law is toothless. So long as a politician isn't an absolute moron like Menendez, they are free to accept "gifts" from anyone for anything. They just can't then turn around and write down "Oh, ok, I'll make sure to pass bill 123 for you"... like Menendez did.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > you pretty much have to be the dumbest most corrupt politician imaginable before you are caught in this law's net I agree. But toothless means toothless. The snare still catches. The law needs to be tighter. But to do that we should be able to agree that the current law is weak. Not toothless. If it’s toothless, there is no point clamping down.

rayiner 2y ago

If we are talking about the recent Supreme Court ruling, no. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scop... Under federal law, as applicable to federal officials, there’s a distinction between bribes and gratuities. Both are illegal for federal officials, under different statutes. There is also a federal law that makes it illegal to pay bribes to a state official. But there is no corresponding federal law making it illegal to pay bribes to a state official, though most states have their own gratuities laws. This distinction between bribes and gratuities is well established in the law. Bribes are about actual corruption. Gratuities are about the appearance of corruption. A bribe can be prosecuted whether the payment is before or after the official act. But there must be some proof that the payment influenced or was meant to influence the official act. Paying a Christmas gift to your mailman is not a bribe. What happened in the recent Supreme Court case is that federal prosecutors prosecuted a state official under the federal bribery statute, where the official was paid for consulting services after allegedly steering government contracts to a trucking company. The prosecution could have tried to prove that the contracts were steered in anticipation of the later consulting work. The prosecution, however, chose not to proceed on a bribery theory. It asserted that the statute (which is titled “bribery”) applied to gratuities as well. And when the jury was instructed on the law, the jury was specifically told that it did not need to find that the official act was influenced by the anticipation of receiving future consulting business. All the Supreme Court decided was that specific statute did not cover a gratuities theory. It sent the case back to the trial court; the government can now choose to retry the person and this time try to actually prove bribery.