Wrote Justice Kavanaugh, quoted in "Corruption Law Allows Gifts to State and Local Officials, Supreme Court Rules/The court, which has limited the sweep of several anti-corruption laws, distinguished after-the-fact rewards from before-the-fact bribes" (NYT).
The alleged gratuity in the actual case was money — $13,000. The federal statute, §666 — to quote the opinion — "makes it a crime for state or to 'corruptly' solicit, accept, accept, or agree to accept 'anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded' for an official act." Importantly, federal law subjects federal officials to 2 different provisions, one for bribes and the other for gratuities, with a much lower sentence for corrupt gratuities. As for the non-corrupt gratuities, where is the line drawn?
The NYT reminds us that Clarence Thomas has received "luxury travel and gifts from the Texas billionaire and conservative donor Harlan Crow."
पोस्ट्स
४४ टिप्पण्या:
Where do those exceptionally generous book deals for politicians like HRC, BHO and his wife fit into this paradigm? I know many see then as hopelessly corrupt bribes after-the-fact. What about the exorbitant speakers fees for these same people paid by universities and corporations. Or corporate board seats? The 'charitable foundations' who receive huge donations from those they did official business with, and the subsequent feather-bedding of paychecks to themselves, family, and loyalists?
No, I just can't bring myself to care: that's how this game is played.
Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh are watching Clarence Thomas take the slings and arrows from the Commies. They aren't stupid. (Re: the recent SCOTUS decision on the feds colluding/ coercing the techies.) Look for more spineless decisions from these two. Roberts has been lost in the wilderness for quite some time.
Crow has no business before SCOTUS. The gifts weren’t for an official act. Important detail!
Compare all the money paid to Joe Biden via Hunter for official acts.
A shared ride is limo service. Advice from a friend is consulting services. Lawyers wreck everything…
I know many see then as hopelessly corrupt bribes after-the-fact.
Me me me!
Wow.
Souter the Second.
(I had to take regular anti-corruption training courses and while our company's policy had a minimal dollar value below which you didn't have to report receiving something of value from a vendor the clear guidance of the training was it's the objective of *influence* that creates a bribe, not the value or timing.)
So let me get this straight, it's only bribery if I take the money before I deliver the goods? Officials have to deliver the goods now before they get paid. It was just a gift — "The Justice Thomas Rule" in action.
I can't recall receiving any bribes or gratuities, ever. I won an award once with cash but had them donate the cash to charity to avoid a 1099. I'm not sure how politicians avoid 1099s.
Those political book deal paybacks get absurd- huge up fronts, ghost writers sit with the political strategists, the publisher cooks the sales numbers- what’s left of the big booksellers help record a ‘sold out’ first edition, the publisher sends a box of books for display in the front window, then when the book doesn’t sell the sales numbers stay on the accounts but the books are never sent- never even printed.
Rich, what “good” did Thomas deliver? Or is that just a detail not worth exploring?
In the feverish mind of the lost lefty, hanging out with your friends is corruption if done by a conservative.
As a (non-lawyer) civilian, it seems that the word "corruptly" is carrying a lot of water here. And an adverb at that!
... and makes it a crime for most state and local officials to
“corruptly” solicit, accept, or agree to accept “anything of value”
“intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with” any official
business or transaction worth $5,000 or more.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
The same NYT that pimped the RBG cult for years and helped her become a millionaire? That paper is still harping on a tiny (comparatively) amount of benefit Thomas enjoyed, which was not even subject to reporting rules? I’m shocked shocked at the hypocrisy of this newspaper!
Rockeye hit on what I was thinking...no one thinks the Obamas Netflix deal is anything more than a gratuity.
"intending to be influenced or rewarded' for an official act."
Those seem like keywords, as Christopher B notes above in his parenthetical.
How about if they get many tens of millions of dollars for a deal with Netflix to do nothing at all? Would that be "corrupt?"
That paper is still harping on a tiny (comparatively) amount of benefit Thomas enjoyed, which was not even subject to reporting rules?
Good to know that you believe receiving a $267000 RV (and that is just the tip of the iceberg) as a "tiny benefit".
For all your concern about the "deep state" and political corruption, you don't seem to actually do anything about it (as long as it benefits people you like).
How would you stop it? There are so many ways to hide a reward for a favor.
And sometimes, you can do it wide out in the open, complete with boasting speeches about it, a trail of emails, and ex-partners giving up the details, and still you can get away with it if you hold certain positions. For instance, say you're the President.
A wink and a nod to a Congressman for rewards after the fact of a law getting passed is already, I'm sure, SOP. Those with access to the SCJ's- on both sides- are the most wealthy and connected of all. I'm sure if they have the will, there is a way to try to influence things. Still...in the end, when it comes to the SCJ's, it's up to them and their conscience. By comparison, Congresscreatures have no conscience.
I can't believe that nobody has mentioned our newest Supreme, Brandon appointee Jackson.
Apparently total gratuities to the Supremes have been something like #1.1mm
$950m of that was for Jackson's book deal.
John Henry
If I was advising Sen Bob Menendez, I would claim the gold bars as 'non-corrupt gratuities', given the stratospheric inflation, we are all under.
Those bars couldn't buy him a one-way ticket to Russia. Give the senator a break, he's a good guy.
Back when I was last employed in the 70s and 80s I would often have to accompany FDA, DEA, OSHA, EPA and other federal inspectors around the plant.
The FDA was particularly strict. If we stopped into the company cafeteria for a cup of coffee, the FDA folks would always insist on paying for their own. They would never pay for mine, though.
John Henry
Ah, for the glorious 80’s and 90’s days of being a “buy-side” client of rich Wall Street firms. Court side seats, expensive restaurant wine, the occasional strip club. No more. The SEC cracked down hard 20 years ago.
@ Tim — Every lawyer that argues before SCOTUS should now ask opposing counsel if they or their firm has any financial ties to any of the justices.
I find it interesting that leftwinger and libeals ALWAYS name/names. They find out who is the TV producer, the editor, the donor, who's giving or helping the Conservative and they make sure EVERYONE knows it.
Meanwhile, Rightwing seem addicted to NOT knowing who on the left is really behind the Leftwing TV show or the news article, or donating to the causes they dislike. They almost never point out who the Head of CNN is or who is running the NYT. Its Murdoch NY Post or Fox news but the Right never says Sulzberger's NYTs.
Its weird, but ties into the fact they don't want to fight and win, they just want the left to be "reasonable".
Rich said...
So let me get this straight, it's only bribery if I take the money before I deliver the goods?
You really should learn how to read, Rich.
No, you can be offered a bribe before if you do X, and be paid off afterwards, and it's still a bribe.
The FBI were lazy, or else the Mayor was smart. In any event, the Feds did to offer any evidence of a quid pro quo (translation for Rich: the Feds did not try to prove that the Mayo and company had come to a deal before hand). That's why they went with "gratuity" rather than "bribe".
Personally? I think no gov't official should ever be receiving a gratuity of any sort. And that most certainly includes any "book deals" or "Netflix streaming deals" (If you want to write a book, you can. You just can't get ANY "advance payments").
But I have no problem with SCOTUS saying "for State officials, it's a State law issue, not a Federal law issue".
So far as I can tell, the entirety of the whine from teh three leftists was their outrage that SCOTUS might respect Federalism, and the actual text of the law
I read the opinion, which seems so self-satisfied in the distinction it is making between bribes and gratuities that it is completely oblivious to the bribery loophole it is creating.
Here are legal questions lawyers will be getting from government contractors:
1. Can I bring the bag of cash, I mean gratuity, to the event where the official act will be performed so long as I don’t hand it over until after?
2. If so, can I spread the cash out on the table so the public official can see how much is there?
3. If not, can I have someone stand in the hall holding the bag? Can the person tilt the bag slightly in the direction of the public official?
From public officials:
4. Can I put a sign on my desk stating, “Snyder gratuities accepted.”
5. Can the sign include a suggested percentage?
6. Can I put a Snyder tip jar on my desk, or does it need to go on a table in the hall?
From the descendants Spiro Agnew,
7. Can Spiro be retroactively reinstated as Vice President and then as President in lieu of Gerald Ford?
Meanwhile, Rightwing seem addicted to NOT knowing who on the left is really behind the Leftwing TV show or the news article, or donating to the causes they dislike. They almost never point out who the Head of CNN is or who is running the NYT. Its Murdoch NY Post or Fox news but the Right never says Sulzberger's NYTs.
They would be accused of anti-Semitism if they did so.
The way you pay bribes in the U.S. is to pay them after the person has left office and/or pay them to them to the relatives while the subject is in office.
It isn't really easy to stop this method of bribery which is why it is done this way.
One method very popular with bribed Democrats is the post-retirement book deal where a publisher advances 7-8 figures for the rights to a book that no individual person would ever buy to read and all the people who have bribed the official buy the books a 100K at a time. The Obamas have also started the television production deals as a new wrinkle to this method of paying bribes.
An advance for a book deal is not a bribe unless the book publisher is asking for some kind of reward from the politician when they are in office. Did book publishers ask for favors from Obama and Hillary that they didn’t ask from Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio? [I don’t think so]. This case is not the same. This case opens the door to bribes. But two can play and Democrats can get as much from this ruling as Republicans.
Meanwhile, Rightwing seem addicted to NOT knowing who on the left is really behind the Leftwing TV show or the news article, or donating to the causes they dislike. They almost never point out who the Head of CNN is or who is running the NYT. Its Murdoch NY Post or Fox news but the Right never says Sulzberger's NYTs.
Really?! I wish I had a nickel for every time someone on the right accuses George Soros of funding every leftwing cause.
Field Marshall Freder is upset that "the right" keeps blaming George Soros for left wing events. Soros funds a lot of it but additional contributions come from trust fund billionaires like the WalMart heiress and the Disney heiress. Soros just boasts about left wing DAs that he funds. He has figured out, or whoever is advising him, that smaller contributions are enough to cripple law enforcement in many cities.
I used to wonder what Soros' motive was. I guess he is just an anarchist.
The left sees the Supreme court as a tool to do their bidding, while the right sees it as a guard for a Republic.
We don't need an [insert political party here] justice, but an educated individual who understands the Constitution and that it applies limits on government, and willing to apply those limits.
Our fraternity at Gettysburg regularly hosted professors for dinner. Usually, one a month invited by one of their students / or one majoring in the subject. That was in the olden days, when we had a cook (excellent), a rotating band of waiters for retting up, and a group meal. We had a fund for buying decent wine for their visit (we usually had Old Mil on tap. I used to ravage the soda machine proceeds. I was an historian (since retired), and I can't believe the change since 1985. Galactic speed.
Soros?
He wants to burn this country to the ground. He wants to make sure our rights derive from the government.
I'm amused at the left's constant attacks on Thomas because he's supposedly been bought off or unduly influenced in some way.
So, let me ask you this: Do you really think any of Thomas' rulings would be different if he hadn't accepted gifts?
I mean, the most consistent, conservative member of the Court for the last 30 years is going to rule differently because of a gift? You really think that?
When I was working for Boeing, we could give nothing to the Navy members of our P-8A program. Couldn't give them a ride from one plant to another but the Navy could give us a ride. Couldn't buy them a donut. When lunch was catered, we had to have a payment jar for the nominal cost of the lunch. All of that to not give the appearance of a bribe.
Boeing's gratuity guidelines allowed nominal gratuities like coffee cups with minimal value, but anything above a minimal value had to be turned over to the ethics office.
The NYT reminds us that Clarence Thomas has received "luxury travel and gifts from the Texas billionaire and conservative donor Harlan Crow."
Does the NYT ever look into Democrats who entered Congress as ordinary folk and became millionaires?
The case involved a payment to the mayor of a town in Indiana. The issue was whether the federal statute made that a federal crime. The decision turned on what the statute said, and to decide that, the Court (per Kavanaugh) spent 20+ pages comparing the statute applicable to state and local officials (Sec. 666) with the one applicable to federal officials. The conclusion was that the statute only applied to bribes, meaning payments in exchange for official action, and not gratuities, meaning payments expressing appreciation for past actions. The key was whether there was an agreement or understanding that the official would be paid for taking some official act, regardless of when the payment was actually made -- so, a riff on both "corruptly" and "exchange". There was no such proof, so conviction reversed. Gorsuch concurred in a brief opinion saying that, even if the statute were just deemed ambiguous on that point, under the rule of lenity the tie goes to the defendant not the prosecution. So, same result.
The scope of these criminal statutes has gotten a lot of attention from the Court, both as it relates to bribery and more generally mail/wire fraud. McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016), reversed a conviction against the former governor of VA on similar grounds -- the prosecution has to prove a quid pro quo to show a bribe, which was what it could not do. So, conviction reversed. In the mail and wire fraud cases, the prosecution has to prove that defrauding someone out of property was an object of the scheme. Every time the Court knocks down one theory by which the government tries to prosecute someone without proving that property element, most recently in Ciminelli v. US, 598 US 306(2023) (rejecting the so-called 'right to control' theory of mail/wire fraud), the government comes up with another work-around. The Court keeps rejecting these theories because only Congress can create federal crimes and must do so in a federal statute that is reasonably clear as to its terms. Federal prosecutors can't just make it up by taking vague statutory language and running with it however they may. That's the basic problem in all of these cases.
The Court has already granted cert in another one, in which a contractor was found guilty for having lied about its compliance with 'minority business entity' compliance on a bridge contract in Philly where it was the low bidder and did excellent work at a great price. The theory of prosecution was that the lie about the MBE stuff deprived the PA bridge authority of the 'benefit of its bargain' relating to the affirmative action element, even if it did not involve any intent to deprive that authority of property. Another case in the pipeline involves the conviction of the dean of the business school at Temple Univ -- his crime was misreporting certain stats to US News to improve the school's rankings by US News of business schools. Again, the scheme had nothing to do with depriving anyone of property but his conviction was affirmed. Very likely that both convictions will end up being reversed.
"An advance for a book deal is not a bribe unless the book publisher is asking for some kind of reward from the politician when they are in office."
The publisher is the conduit, not the briber. The people who buy up the books in 100K lots are bribers making the payments long after the favors were done. I am sure none of it can be prosecuted no matter how you treat the money, but the thing is almost always a bribe paid when the book deals are so outlandishly non-economic standing on their own. The same thing happens for these speaking engagements where the former office holder is paid $500K for a 30 minute read speech. It is all clever payment of bribes in a way that is nearly impossible prove and prosecute.
Matt said...
An advance for a book deal is not a bribe unless the book publisher is asking for some kind of reward from the politician when they are in office.
The book publishers are subsidiaries of big companies who always have business before the gov't.
The their very nature, those gov't people have income coming in, they don't need to live off the advance in order to be able to write the book.
If the book sells, they'll get their royalties.
If the book doesn't sell, then the "advance" was a bribe / payoff,
Should never, ever, be allowed
Oh, and the Federal gov't DOES criminalize "gratuities" to Federal officials. So "that huge advance wasn't a bribe, it was a gratuity" doesn't protect it for Feds.
So preventing book "advances" on the grounds "gratuities aren't allowed" is perfectly reasonable
Thank you Richard Dolan for a nice writeup of the issues
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा