What prevents corruption investigations of inexplicably wealthy politicians?

[LSLGuy]

Yeah.

Right now the Supreme Court endorsed standard is that the minimum evidence needed for conviction is a video showing the bagman clearly saying “Here is $100K in payment for you voting “yes” on SB 123.” Followed by the congressperson or staffer saying “I agree to vote for SB 123 in exchange for your payment of $100K.”

Anything less is mere circumstantial evidence, perhaps leading generally toward a vague feeling of impropriety. Unless the congressperson had, in Steve Martin’s immortal words, “a darn good reason.” for voting “yes” anyhow. In which case the evidence is moot or excluded.

We have the finest Congress & executive money can buy. With essentially no legal limits on how corrupt they can become.

[Buck_Godot]

Also it may not be necessary for the pol in question to extert any pressure. His very nature as a powerful entity might be enough. If you are a functionary at the FCC, and your boss hands you and application pointing out that this application comes from the first lady, granting that application is going to be your top priority even if you never spoke to anyone in the white house, and your job was never threatened in any way. How would you prove corruption when all Ladybird did was file an application.

[Northern_Piper]

@LSLGuy

Right now the Supreme Court endorsed standard is that the minimum evidence needed for conviction is a video showing the bagman clearly saying “Here is $100K in payment for you voting “yes” on SB 123.” Followed by the congressperson or staffer saying “I agree to vote for SB 123 in exchange for your payment of $100K.”

Anything less is mere circumstantial evidence, perhaps leading generally toward a vague feeling of impropriety. Unless the congressperson had, in Steve Martin’s immortal words, “a darn good reason.” for voting “yes” anyhow. In which case the evidence is moot or excluded.

Interesting.

The Supreme Court of Canada has gone in s different direction:

Since April 1985, the accused had made representations to the various levels of government on behalf of two companies in his capacity as their lawyer. After being appointed to the Senate in 1986, he continued to do so for the purpose of obtaining grants. For all his fruitless approaches to governments, corporate law work and approaches to private investors, the accused received fees. He was also granted a loan by the principal shareholder of the two companies. The accused was charged with having accepted a benefit or advantage in consideration for cooperating, assisting or exercising influence in connection with a matter of business relating to the government, contrary to [s. 121(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. At trial, the trial judge concluded that the accused did not possess the mens rearequired by s. 121(1)(a) and entered a verdict of acquittal, concluding that a “corrupt state of mind” was necessary before a conviction could be entered under that section. The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal.

Held : The appeal should be allowed and a new trial ordered.

Section 121(1)(a) of the Criminal Code is designed to prevent government officials from undertaking, for consideration, to act on another person’s behalf in conduct in business with the government. The clear wording of s. 121(1)(a) does not require that the incriminating activity with which the person has been charged has been engaged in by that person in his official capacity. The Crown thus need not prove that a benefit was conferred because of a person’s position and correspondingly, that the recipient knew that it was given because of his employment status. It is the employee’s position in dealing with government, while a member of government, that is essential to make an action criminal. It does not matter whether in conducting this business the official purports to act in another capacity.

Short version: MP or Senator who sells access commits a criminal offence, even if they say they’re doing it in their capacity in business or legal practice.

R. v. Cogger - SCC Cases

[slicedalone]

@Northern_Piper

The Supreme Court of Canada has gone in s different direction:

Reason # 4,872 that Canada is a better country than the U.S. of A.

[LSLGuy]

@Northern_Piper

Interesting.

The Supreme Court of Canada has gone in s different direction:

Lest I mislead, my comment was more a cynical gloss than a well-informed true rendition of current SCOTUS jurisprudence on the question. But from the lay stuff I’ve read, reality is not far from what I wrote. Essentially that discretion is discretion and so the exercise of discretion can’t be assumed to be anything but innocent absent overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[PastTense]

@flurb

The decision was a factor in the Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss bribery charges against Senator Bob Menendez.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/22/politics/bob-menendez-charges/index.html

[Northern_Piper]

I imagine there will be immediate examples of Republican senators rushing to make statements that this is proof that Biden has weaponised the Justice department.

[flurb]

Bob Menendez is a corrupt piece of crap. He’s up for reelection next year, I hope he gets primaried out of office.

[Northern_Piper]

Does this put his seat in play in the general? Or is New Jersey a strong Democratic state?

[Buck_Godot]

@flurb

I hope he gets primaried out of office.

I hope that it doesn’t come to that.

I hope Schumer convinces him to resign, or that the Democrats take the lead in his getting expelled from the Senate. We need to show the country that unlike the Republicans we stand against corruption no matter which party does it.

The Governor or New Jersey would appoint his successor, and he’s a Democrat, so there would be no change in power.

[enipla]

Looking for highest bidder.

@Northern_Piper

I imagine there will be immediate examples of Republican senators rushing to make statements that this is proof that Biden has weaponised the Justice department.

I’m sure. Scared that the DOJ is doing it’s job.