# The Supreme Court may be considering the legalization of bribery **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 4, 2016, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877 "2016-05-04T12:45:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/1 "2016-05-04T12:45:00Z")
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.](http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-supreme-court-gets-ready-to-legalize-corruption?intcid=mod-yml) 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 … > [@](#): > > the McDonnell family with expensive vacations, a Rolex watch, fifteen thousand dollars for their daughter’s wedding reception, the use of a Ferrari, and a hundred and twenty thousand dollars in loans … is just “protected free speech” as was McDonnell’s … > [@](#): > > host[ing] a luncheon to announce the launch of Williams’s [the briber’s] new product and set[ting] up meetings for Williams with officials at the University of Virginia’s medical school. 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_. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/2 "2016-05-04T12:58:18Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/3 "2016-05-04T13:07:02Z")
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! Also, Republicans! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/4 "2016-05-04T13:44:30Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 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_. 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] ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/5 "2016-05-04T14:27:19Z")
But, but - Republicans! Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/6 "2016-05-04T14:36:22Z")
Ooh. Snap. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/7 "2016-05-04T15:42:41Z")
**Bricker** : So, should the conviction of the VA governor be overturned, in your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/8 "2016-05-04T16:05:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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! > > Also, Republicans! When you try to be ironic, you’re not. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/9 "2016-05-04T16:26:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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! > > Also, Republicans! So…bribery is fine with you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/10 "2016-05-04T16:58:57Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > So…bribery is fine with you? 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?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/11 "2016-05-04T17:02:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Bricker** : So, should the conviction of the VA governor be overturned, in your opinion? Yes. I think the jury needed to be correctly instructed on what an “official act” was. The instructions the jury got allowed them to convict for innocent conduct. Now, this does not mean the conduct was, in fact, innocent, but only that the jury was not told the right way of deciding the issue. ---
**Author:** ![divemaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/divemaster/32/78_2.png) [@divemaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/divemaster)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/12 "2016-05-04T17:40:08Z")
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…). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/13 "2016-05-04T18:54:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Totenfeier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@Totenfeier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Totenfeier)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/14 "2016-05-04T20:43:32Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > 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. I am horribly afraid that I am very close to agreeing with you. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/15 "2016-05-04T20:52:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Actually if you read the article it does not seem to be as you say. From the article: > [@](#): > > In the McDonnell case, his lawyers argued that what federal prosecutors called bribery was also really just speech by Jonnie R. Williams, the McDonnells’ benefactor. > > \ > > According to Francisco, Williams was only paying for access (which is generally legal), not government action (which is not). As the lawyer put it in his oral argument, “The line is between access to decision-makers, on the one hand, and trying to influence those decisions, on the other.” In this view, it’s permissible for McDonnell to be paid for official access, just not for official acts. > > The same concept is at the heart of both the Citizens United and McDonnell cases. In the campaign case, Kennedy said Congress could only prohibit quid-pro-quo corruption in regulating campaign contributions. Outside of a direct exchange of a contribution in return for a government action, the First Amendment protected the right to contribute money to campaigns. Likewise, McDonnell’s argument is that Congress can only prohibit bribery when there is an explicit quid pro quo—a payment or gift in return for a specific official act. In both cases, though, the Court seems determined to define quid pro quo so narrowly that it’s practically impossible to find. Seems the Citizen’s United link is there. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/16 "2016-05-04T20:58:35Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Actually if you read the article it does not seem to be as you say. > > From the article: > > Seems the Citizen’s United link is there. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/17 "2016-05-04T21:08:22Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/18 "2016-05-04T21:21:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/19 "2016-05-04T22:49:29Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Actually if you read the article it does not seem to be as you say. > > From the article: > > Seems the Citizen’s United link is there. Yes, the article claims that Citizens United is relevant. But it’s not. As Justice Breyer said: > [@](#): > > My goodness. Letters go by the dozens over to the secretary of HUD, to the secretary of ­­HHS, to the secretary or the assistant secretaries, and they say, my Constituent Smith has a matter before you that has been pending for 18 months; we would appreciate it if you would review that and take action. And then the elected official says to Smith, I did my best on this. And Smith thinks, good, he’s used his influence. 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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/20 "2016-05-04T23:30:14Z")
Which hits especially hard, given your long standing approval. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877.md?page=2)