Extending the philosophy of the 2010 Citizens United v Actual Citizens decision, the Supreme Court may be ready to legalize political bribery — it’s just another form of protected free speech. The Scumbags don’t have Scalia anymore but, according to the article, Justice Breyer may be inclined to join the Scumbags and reverse the bribery conviction of Bob McDonnell, the former governor of Virginia. Apparently unless there’s very clear evidence of official malfeasance, e.g. a signed written contract (“I give you Quid for your Quo”), bribery cannot be claimed. Plying …
… is just “protected free speech” as was McDonnell’s …
Please note that I am NOT asking whether SCOTUS has the power or right to legalize bribery. AFAIK they can make it legal for Officers of the Court to parade naked down Main Street while raping baby goats. Nor am I waiting for some hyper-pedant to “correct” the word bribery to be apparent bribery.
I’m asking whether those so proud of the decision in Citizens United v Actual Citizens think that extending “free speech” to include bribery is wise public policy.
Of course it’s a good idea. Look at all the confusion now by making politicians lurk around in the underbrush of arcane regulations to solicit and receive bribes. Candidates for office have to play a game now, asking for a bribe but winking at the same, these aren’t the most coordinated guys on earth and several of them have developed serious eye tics as a result. And the bribers are in an even worse position having to hand over their money while saying that they believe in the political ideals of the scumbag crook they are giving it to. This will seriously improve the situation by making it as easy buy legislation as it is to ship jobs overseas and to shoot kids for being black.
Oh, good – another chance for septimus to display his finely honed legal analytical skills. And his indignation! He might not exactly know the “law,” but by gosh, he has Morals! And bribery is Bad! Because of Morals!
First: despite the breathless gasps of Slate and Mother Jones, this is not an extension of Citizens United. It’s an application – not an extension – of one of the federal laws under which McDonnell was convicted, which prohibits giving, offering or promising anything of value to any public official for any official act performed (or to be performed) by the official. To win a conviction the government has to prove a link between a thing of value conferred upon a public official and a specific ‘official act’ for which it was given.
That standard was set not by Citizens United, but by a unanimous Supreme Court in US v. Sun Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398 (1999). They observed that if the “official act” in question is merely access, then the statute could be read to criminalize the Secretary of Agriculture being given a school T-shirt when he gives a talk at that school about agriculture, or the President’s being given a team jersey when he greets the Stanley Cup winners at the White House.
The government’s response at oral argument is that a jury would not convict for such trivial exchanges. But that’s not the way criminal law works. An unpopular, hated figure might well suffer a conviction over trivial gifts because the jury doesn’t like him. Criminal laws must be strictly construed against the government and liberally construed in favor of the defendant.
So your premise is false: this is not an extension of Citizens United.
Now, is it wise public policy?
The Supreme Court should not be crafting social policy. It should be interpreting federal law. If the federal law is poor social policy, it is for CONGRESS, not the courts, to correct it.
In my opinion, the existing law is wise policy, and it would be a poor idea to narrow it and criminalize further conduct.
So, to recap:
[ul]
[li]Not Citizens United[/li][li]Not the courts’ job to craft public policy[/li][li]Not a flaw in the existing federal law[/li][li]A huge flaw in our ability to educate people in basic civics principles[/li][/ul]
Bribery is not fine. But convicting person under a law that fails to define criminal conduct correctly is not fine, either.
Are you one of those people that hears a burglar was not convicted because the evidence against him was illegally seized and replies, “So I guess we’re in favor of burglary now?”
There are plenty of Democrat officials who think the McDonnell verdict was wrong. I believe there were at least 30 who submitted comments in favor of acquittal. Just yesterday, the chairman of the Prince William County Democratic Committee opined that McDonnell didn’t do anything that previous governors and “nearly every member of the General Assembly” has done and that the conviction should be overturned.
Feel free to disagree; but I don’t see this as a partisan issue or one deserving of jail unless we want to throw hundreds of politicians into the clink (I don’t know–maybe that’s what you are saying…).
I kinda take the point being offered that this vaguely worded law hands too much discretion to prosecutors. And all across the country, the positon of prosecutor is the first stepping stone for the politically ambitious.
Were it up to me, I would most likely lean in the direction of keeping bribery as strictly defined as possible. Transparency ought to be enough. But Christ Jesus! a nutritional supplement based on tobacco? Twisting arms to get a “fair hearing” for snake oil? Stinks on ice, and the people should know! And that ought to be enough, and if it isn’t, then that’s our fault!
I agree with Bricker on this issue. The thing worse than no law at all is a badly made one.
The author of that article made the connection. Is there any evidence that the SC justices made that connection? Keep in mind that no ruling has even been made yet.
Antonin Scalia — recently passed whilst taking a donated all expenses paid vacation to meet 35 prominent businessmen to discuss business — would have rolled over in his grave at official bribery.
And that long before his tragically late death.
The article says that is what McDonnell’s attorneys were arguing (that the money is basically free speech since there was no “official” act done in return).
Of course I do not know the minds of the justices and I assume they can make a decision on any basis whatsoever and not only what the attorneys argued in court.
Still, it doesn’t seem too much of a stretch to suggest this is akin to Citizen’s United given what the attorneys argued.
Yes, the article claims that Citizens United is relevant.
But it’s not.
As Justice Breyer said:
That can’t be a crime, Breyer goes on to say.
Now, the article’s author draws a parallel between that and the reasoning of Citizens United, as though the current argument and discussion is somehow poisoned by Citizens United. But the only “link” is that both discuss speech as access to government officials.
But: nothing in the argument about McDonnell’s case rested on, depended on, or would have argued differently even if Citizens United had been decides the other way.
Thus my disparaging comments about Slate and Mother Jones.