For those who don’t know what this is about - here
I don’t understand something. The gifts that McDonnell received were given legally. There was no law against giving or receiving of those gifts. As far as I can find in the articles (very few go intoany detail), McDonnell never gave the company in question any government contracts or any money from the treasury, or did anything for the company in his official capacity. What he did do, apparently (correct me if I am wrong), is connect the company’s CEO to some people. Which seems completely innocuous, and, in fact, is the standard “quid pro quo” in most political donations - by giving money to the politician you get access that you otherwise would not have.
The crime was what youbdescribed. He took money and other gifts from the CEO of a dietary supplement company in exchange for setting up meetings between the CEO and state officials, and held a reception for the CEO in the governor’s mansion to get researchers to conduct studies on one of the company’s products.
He also posed for photos with the product used at their website, brought it up at cabinet meetings, and basically acted as a part-time spokesman for the snake oil. But, perhaps he did it because his wife was in love with the CEO.
Seriously, if that is the crime, then half (at least, I would suspect way more than that) of politicians belong in the same cell as McDonnell. Political contributors are not altruistic. They are paying for access and connections. What is the difference exactly between that and McDonnell case?
These were not “political contributions.” They were not checks written to a campaign. They were gifts to the Governor and his family. Expensive gifts. Personal gifts. A watch, wedding expenses, golf bags, use of a Farrari.
The gifts do have to be reported, and McDonnell did, when required. But requiring the reporting of someone allowing you to drive his Ferrari for three hours is really stretching it.
The gifts themselves were legal, but the prosecution successfully convinced the jury that the actions the McDonnell’s took to benefit the gift-givers after receiving the gifts fit the definition of corruption.
It seems like if these gifts that resulted in access/connections/etc. had been political donations to political campaigns, the McDonnell’s would be in the clear. But since they were personal gifts, they were (according to the prosecution) sufficient evidence of corruption.
This is about a quid pro quo, so they weren’t gifts, they were payments. There is no clear distinction between paying for access and making a campaign contribution, except that one is legal, and the other is not.
There is no law in most states against pre-marital sex - but there is one against paying (or charging) for it nearly everywhere. You can read the indictment if you want to see which specific federal statutes he was convicted under. McDonnell used his office to promote the product in exchange for ‘favors’. He could have accepted payment openly to promote the products after leaving office, or in a non-official capacity (like, say, Bob Dole shilling Viagra). What he couldn’t do was accept payment to promote the products in his capacity as governor.
The jury disagreed. And many people find the concept of a Governor being paid to promote a product in an unofficial capacity to be humorous. He wouldn’t have been given those payments to promote the product if he wasn’t governor.
McDonnell was convicted even though the most the prosecution could prove was that he did fairly mundane things such as setting up meetings for businessman Jonnie Williams, who was trying to promote a dietary supplement — as opposed to official acts enumerated under state laws, such as the power to appoint someone to an office.
…
Stan Brand, a Democratic attorney who specializes in campaign finance and government ethics, said the broad definition of McDonnell’s actions should make other governors and politicians think twice about even their informal actions.
“I think governors and others have to think, ‘Wow, it’s not just the authority that I have under the statute — it’s all the informal things that I do,’” Brand said.
…
the case against them was built around more low-key events, such as McDonnell’s instructions to set up meetings for Williams or attending an event at the governor’s mansion that marked the launch of one of Williams’ new products. And prosecutors were unable to show that Williams got anything tangible for all the money he showered on the McDonnell family.