# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2016, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/21 "2016-05-04T23:36:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Thus my disparaging comments about Slate and Mother Jones. In reading the OP and skimming the thread, I may have missed the incredible relevance of _Slate_ and _Mother Jones_. I did, however, note earlier the interesting [_New Yorker_ article](http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-supreme-court-gets-ready-to-legalize-corruption) cited in the OP. The one titled “The Supreme Court Gets Ready to Legalize Corruption”. The one written by Jeffrey Toobin, a staff writer at the _New Yorker_ and a senior analyst for CNN. Now I am not myself any sort of legal scholar, but I can make reasonable judgments about the relative credibility of the sources of different perspectives. And Toobin’s reputation speaks for itself, and his analysis certainly makes intuitive sense. When he says “First the case turned the law of campaign finance into a useless corpse. Now it appears the law of political bribery is the next victim. Citizens United let rich people buy candidates; now they may be able to purchase office-holders, too” I am reminded of some of the commentary from the esteemed Supreme Court regarding the CU case. The idea the “money is speech” finds a natural extension into shoehorning the First Amendment into support of bribery for the moneyed interests. That song was sung in five-part harmony in the _Citizens United_ ruling, with the venerable departed Scalia carrying a powerful solo. John Roberts’ darkly comical claim that he sees no evidence for “the corrupting influence of money in politics” lends an almost other-worldly Satanic sheen to the proceedings. So I don’t know who to believe. You, a known right-wing flake, or Jeffrey Toobin, a staff writer at the _New Yorker_, a senior analyst for CNN for a decade and a half, and the author of five books and recipient of awards for journalistic excellence from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/22 "2016-05-05T00:11:51Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So I don’t know who to believe. You, a known right-wing flake, or Jeffrey Toobin, a staff writer at the _New Yorker_, a senior analyst for CNN for a decade and a half, and the author of five books and recipient of awards for journalistic excellence from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. Well, his degree and experience is journalism. Which, if you saw my pit thread, is a festering corpse. **Bricker** , IIRC, is a practicing attorney. These may factor into your decision. I have no dog in the fight, but **Bricker** is not saying that bribery is OK. He’s saying, and the Supremes may agree, that certain bribery laws suck and need to be better written. Or something. ---
**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 5, 2016, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/23 "2016-05-05T00:44:00Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > Well, his degree and experience is journalism. Which, if you saw my pit thread, is a festering corpse. He has a law degree from Harvard, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/24 "2016-05-05T01:17:30Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > In reading the OP and skimming the thread, I may have missed the incredible relevance of _Slate_ and _Mother Jones_. I did, however, note earlier the interesting [_New Yorker_ article](http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-supreme-court-gets-ready-to-legalize-corruption) cited in the OP. The one titled “The Supreme Court Gets Ready to Legalize Corruption”. The one written by Jeffrey Toobin, a staff writer at the _New Yorker_ and a senior analyst for CNN. > > Now I am not myself any sort of legal scholar, but I can make reasonable judgments about the relative credibility of the sources of different perspectives. > > And Toobin’s reputation speaks for itself, and his analysis certainly makes intuitive sense. When he says “First the case turned the law of campaign finance into a useless corpse. Now it appears the law of political bribery is the next victim. Citizens United let rich people buy candidates; now they may be able to purchase office-holders, too” I am reminded of some of the commentary from the esteemed Supreme Court regarding the CU case. The idea the “money is speech” finds a natural extension into shoehorning the First Amendment into support of bribery for the moneyed interests. That song was sung in five-part harmony in the _Citizens United_ ruling, with the venerable departed Scalia carrying a powerful solo. John Roberts’ darkly comical claim that he sees no evidence for “the corrupting influence of money in politics” lends an almost other-worldly Satanic sheen to the proceedings. > > So I don’t know who to believe. You, a known right-wing flake, or Jeffrey Toobin, a staff writer at the _New Yorker_, a senior analyst for CNN for a decade and a half, and the author of five books and recipient of awards for journalistic excellence from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. How about your own brain? Toobin does not offer a single instance of Mcdonnell’s lawyers citing the Citizen’s United ruling in their argument. Why not? Because they did not. Toobin does not even claim that their arguments invoked Citizens United. Instead, he engages in a bit of post hoc, ergo propter hoc slight of hand: this case happened AFTER Citizens United, so, of course, obviously… this case “reminds him” of some of the dialog from Citizen’s United. Toobin’s piece is intended to persuade, not to be legal analysis. He wants a lay public already less than overjoyed with Citizens United to connect some dots with this case. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/25 "2016-05-05T02:35:27Z")
Bricker is correct here. But I’m just a left-wing flake. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/26 "2016-05-05T02:43:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How about your own brain? Why use your own brain when you can appeal to authority without even understanding the topic at hand? > [@wolfpup](#): > > Now I am not myself any sort of legal scholar, but I can make reasonable judgments about the relative credibility of the sources of different perspectives. Deja vu from another thread: > [@Why GMO labeling is a good idea](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/115): > > I came into this saying I had no technical knowledge of the subject ---
**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/27 "2016-05-05T08:15:49Z")
> [@divemaster](#): > > 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…). What do we call hundreds of politicians in the clink? A good start. Yes, yes, a tired joke. My two cents. As a government employee superficially involved in contracting iata couple of my stations, I couldn’t accept a cheap coffee mug. The laws/rules are always poorly written if they don’t agree with one’s position (a known fact in almost all disagreements - sports, religion, etc…). Still we have a conviction by peers and a unanimous upholding on appeal. I noted some justices seemed to need a particular threshold amount. The laws are going to get really thick as the pols try to define every last $, vacation, ferrari rental, wedding/rehearsal/reception, etc… cost. Bullshit. Why is that a concern at the Supreme court level? Free speech? For the lobbyist perhaps as he is speaking with money. How does free speech apply to the recipient of the gifts/$? Our constitution is a wonderful document warts and all. Whether you’re a strict constructionist or have a more expansive view (my opinion is that’s a must based on inability to predict future events/technologies); it doesn’t define to the letter or dollar amount our individual rights and government responsibilities. IANAL obviously (got an A in US Constitutional Law 45 years ago). ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/28 "2016-05-05T09:30:07Z")
> [@divemaster](#): > > 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…). That might be a good idea… We really should do that in Spain, too, but it might require a new prison. Can we rent one of yours? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/29 "2016-05-05T13:31:16Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > That might be a good idea… We really should do that in Spain, too, but it might require a new prison. Can we rent one of yours? We got some space in Gitmo you might be able to use. And you can apply your frequent flyer miles towards free shipping. Waterboarding is still free! 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 5, 2016, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/30 "2016-05-05T13:36:01Z")
Dennis Miller, Mallard Fillmore, look out! The **Shodan** Comedy Tour is coming! ---
**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 5, 2016, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/31 "2016-05-05T14:03:07Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Bricker is correct here. > > But I’m just a left-wing flake. Well, you just spoiled all the fun. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/32 "2016-05-05T15:07:24Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Bricker is correct here. > > But I’m just a left-wing flake. As a Virginia Democrat who is pissed off at McDonnell for rejecting medicaid expansion in the state, I agree Bricker is probably right here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/33 "2016-05-05T16:15:42Z")
> [@smithsb](#): > > What do we call hundreds of politicians in the clink? A good start. > > Yes, yes, a tired joke. > > My two cents. As a government employee superficially involved in contracting iata couple of my stations, I couldn’t accept a cheap coffee mug. > > The laws/rules are always poorly written if they don’t agree with one’s position (a known fact in almost all disagreements - sports, religion, etc…). Still we have a conviction by peers and a unanimous upholding on appeal. > > I noted some justices seemed to need a particular threshold amount. The laws are going to get really thick as the pols try to define every last $, vacation, ferrari rental, wedding/rehearsal/reception, etc… cost. Bullshit. Why is that a concern at the Supreme court level? > > Free speech? For the lobbyist perhaps as he is speaking with money. How does free speech apply to the recipient of the gifts/$? > > Our constitution is a wonderful document warts and all. Whether you’re a strict constructionist or have a more expansive view (my opinion is that’s a must based on inability to predict future events/technologies); it doesn’t define to the letter or dollar amount our individual rights and government responsibilities. > > IANAL obviously (got an A in US Constitutional Law 45 years ago). I’m curious to know what you read about the specifics of the case before writing this. You don’t waste one keystroke writing about “official acts,” yet the major issue in play is not the value of the gifts, coffee mug or otherwise, but on the fact that the law doesn’t just prohibit “gifts.” It prohibits gifts made to influence official acts. Here, the main problem is that the jury was not given the correct definition of what an official act was. Did you understand that this was the point involved? If I live next door to you, a state senator, and I say to you, **smithsb** , old pal, tell you what: (A) I’ll give you this bottle of single-malt scotch if you mow the area between our houses until I can get this zoning variance approved to call it a natural meadow that doesn’t have to be mowed; (B) I’ll give you this bottle of single-malt scotch if you find out who I need to write to for a zoning variance; (C) I’ll give you this bottle of single-malt scotch if you call the zoning guy and ask him what forms I need to file for the zoning variance; (D) I’ll give you this bottle of single-malt scotch if you call the zoning guy and tell him I need his help getting the variance approved; (E) I’ll give you this bottle of single-malt scotch if you send the zoning guy a letter on your office stationery that explains how important it is that my zoning variance be approved; (F) I’ll give you this bottle of single-malt scotch if you introduce a bill that just grants me a zoning variance. In which of the above scenarios did I break the law? And before you answer, don’t you think you need to know exactly what the law says? If you were to learn that the law prohibited things only when an “official action,” on the part of the government person was involved, which of the above count as an “official action?” ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/34 "2016-05-05T16:49:31Z")
I’ll play… F? ---
**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 5, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/35 "2016-05-05T17:11:32Z")
I’ll spoiler my answer: [spoiler]F, but also E. D, if not illegal, is pretty damn close to the line.[/spoiler] ---
**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 5, 2016, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/36 "2016-05-05T19:36:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here, the main problem is that the jury was not given the correct definition of what an official act was. You say that like it is a fact when it is actually your opinion. You are certainly welcome to your opinion and it may be the Supreme Court will agree with you when it decides the case but as of _now_ the current facts on the ground are that the correct definition was used. > [@](#): > > Appellant accuses the district court of giving the jury an “unprecedented and misleading” instruction on the “official act” element. Appellant’s Br. 51. We disagree with these characterizations. First, the court’s instruction was not unprecedented. To a large extent, the instruction echoed the “official act” instruction in United States v. Jefferson. 20 Second, the instruction here was not misleading. The court correctly stated, consistent with Birdsall, that the term “official action” “includes those actions that have been clearly established by settled practice as part of a public official’s position, even if the action was not taken pursuant to responsibilities explicitly assigned by law.” J.A. 7671-72. > > SOURCE: [UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROBERT F. MCDONNELL](http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/mcdonnell-op-below.pdf) (PDF) They devote many pages to this and other related points. Too much to quote here. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/37 "2016-05-05T20:00:30Z")
As I see it, influence/graft/bribery is inherently fungible. The connection between the payoff and the policy is often not always evident. ---
**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 5, 2016, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/38 "2016-05-05T20:22:14Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > As I see it, influence/graft/bribery is inherently fungible. The connection between the payoff and the policy is often not always evident. As I see it the influence/graft/bribery is inherent in the payoff. Giving someone a mug doesn’t count because it “buys” the person giving the mug nothing. But when you give the governor tens of thousands in shopping sprees, and generous loans and Rolex watches and whatnot they are doing it not to be nice. Did the person giving this do similar things for his employees or people in his church or other government employees lower down the chain? Of course he didn’t. He gave that money explicitly for preferential treatment and/or favors from the governor and he chose the governor because he could deliver more than someone lower on the government food chain. It need not be an explicit quid pro quo. The return on those gifts is implied. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/39 "2016-05-05T20:34:59Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Why use your own brain when you can appeal to authority without even understanding the topic at hand? > > Deja vu from another thread: And a pleasant good day to you, too. “Appeal to authority” is what normal people in the real world necessarily do all the time, since individuals can only be experts in a small domain of knowledge. You are confusing this essential aspect of life in a complex and technologically advanced society with the argumentative fallacy of the same name, which pertains to appeals to an illegitimate authority or one falsely leveraging his reputation outside his area of expertise. Governments, NGOs and other institutions, and normal people routinely rely on credible experts to guide their knowledge and decisions. They readily acknowledge lack of subject matter expertise in specific areas where that may be true, but intelligent people possess the ability to identify credible sources to guide them. But I see that such honesty is futile in a den of thieves and liars and those highly motivated to be winners of inane internet arguments. Apparently the real problem here is that my prior disagreements with you have undermined your fragile ego. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctor_jackson/32/32_2.png) [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2016, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/40 "2016-05-05T20:38:25Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Bricker is correct here. > > But I’m just a left-wing flake. He is. And I have no functional wings. I’m an ostrich flake. Dammit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877.md?page=3)