OK, there’s something that confuses me. But instead of diving into it, I’m going to ask some short, simple questions first. Now this first one will seem dumb, but trust me, I’m going somewhere with this.
OK, question one. If I go up to a senator or representative and say, “If you vote for bill X then I will pay you $50,000,” is that an illegal attempt to bribe him or her?
In the words of a famous (but I forget his name…) US representative, “You can’t buy my vote, but you can rent my attention”.
That pretty much sums it up. Campaign contributions (only are completely clueless individual would directly offer $ to a politician. People do, but that is easy to identify and almost always illegal) are given simply because a politician is already taking a position that favors someone. The contribution makes access easier. There are politicians on every side of every issue that matters to contributors. The money simply flows to encourage the resolution of the issue.
IANAL, but I am reasonably certain the answer to the OP’s question yes, paying for an official act pretty much defines a bribe.
Thank you, but you’re kind of jumping ahead.
My second question was going to be… Actually, it still is, if I go up to a senator or representative and say, “If you vote for bill X then I will contribute $50,000 to your next campaign,” is that an illegal bribery attempt?
The scenario described in the OP is a direct quid pro quo – if you do this for me I will give you money. That’s pretty much the standard for bribery of an official under any criminal code.
And while I think I know where this conversation is going, I’ll wait for more questions.
On preview, I see there’s another question. And my understanding is, the quid pro quo also applies in that scenario.
The second seems like quid pro quo too, right? From a legal standpoint?
Both scenarios are clearly bribery. Here’s the law:
(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
© to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
© being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
I’ll jump ahead, too.
If you’re going to ask if there’s a bright line between bribery and not bribery, there isn’t. It’s all gray.
OK, as to what caused this thread, it’s about the unions fighting fast track authority for a trans Pacific partnership. “On Wednesday, the AFL-CIO announced it is freezing campaign contributions to Congress to pressure members into fighting fast-track trade legislation.”
This is almost like a reverse bribery, but another way to read that is, “Vote no for fast track and we’ll give money to your campaign.”
It’s using money to influence votes, and yet, I’m positive that legally it’s not bribery. I’m just confused on how.
You are inferring that voting against fast track will result in campaign contributions, but that doesn’t mean that it was implied (and it certainly wasn’t stated). Besides, if that statement constituted an attempt to bribe, what could be made of my following statement?
“I will never give a single cent to any legislator who votes against same sex marriage!”
Do you believe I have just committed myself to giving contributions to those who vote for such bills? I think that the more reasonable interpretation is that I’m simply engaging in protected political speech, and there s no element of corruption in my statement.
“We’re withholding money to get you to vote no, but even if you vote against our interests, after it’s over we’ll resume donating to you,” could be an interpretation, but it seems highly unlikely.
I guess that’s what I’m grappling with, and I guess it’s probably getting into IMHO or GD territory, but “I’ll only donate to your campaign if you’ll fight against gay marriage.” vs “I’ll donate to your campaign if you vote for the anti gay marriage act.”
To stick to GQ, I’m guessing legally if you dance around something it’s more likely to be legal. Kind of like if you pay a woman $100 or whatever for sex it’s prostitution, but if you buy her dinner and a movie in exchange for sex it’s legally not.