Am I reading it right that it’s now legal for a Federal official or poltician to receive whatever gift they want, and openly, as long as the gift is received after the quid pro quo action has taken place?
Or am I way off base? Could be - just read a summary.
Am I reading it right that it’s now legal for a Federal official or poltician to receive whatever gift they want, and openly, as long as the gift is received after the quid pro quo action has taken place?
Or am I way off base? Could be - just read a summary.
Before today I was unaware those positions were considered tipped employees.
I am shocked Alito and Thomas were OK with very large gifts to government officials.
Am I reading it right that it’s now legal for a Federal official or poltician to receive whatever gift they want, and openly, as long as the gift is received after the quid pro quo action has taken place?
Or am I way off base? Could be - just read a summary.
But the court’s conservative majority said the law in question was a “bribery statute, not a gratuities law.” Kavanaugh said federal law “leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”
“leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”
“Gratuity” sounds like a euphemism when it’s like a Mercedes for your wife. Did Menendez get his stuff before or after he made the associated public actions? He might take an interest in this decision.
“leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”
“Gratuity” sounds like a euphemism when it’s like a Mercedes for your wife. Did Menendez get his stuff before or after he made the associated public actions? He might take an interest in this decision.
I only read one article summary but it seems that the issue is how the law is written, not that the ex post facto gratuities are legal by default
I read the decision and the dissent.
This is just about whether federal law makes such a payment a crime. The decision does not prevent state and local governments from making such payments a crime, as many do.
The key issue is not when the payment was made. Even the majority agrees that if there is a quid pro quo deal, that is illegal under federal law, even if the payment is made after the official has taken the desired action.
The key issue is when the official gained the expectation of getting paid. The majority would say that if the expectation only arose after the official took action, the federal law does not apply. The dissent would say that is still illegal, provided that the official accepted the subsequent payment with the understanding they were being rewarded for awarding a contract, or whatever favor was sought from the official.
I read the decision and the dissent.
This is just about whether federal law makes such a payment a crime. The decision does not prevent state and local governments from making such payments a crime, as many do.
The key issue is not when the payment was made. Even the majority agrees that if there is a quid pro quo deal, that is illegal under federal law, even if the payment is made after the official has taken the desired action.
The key issue is when the official gained the expectation of getting paid. The majority would say that if the expectation only arose after the official took action, the federal law does not apply. The dissent would say that is still illegal, provided that the official accepted the subsequent payment with the understanding they were being rewarded for awarding a contract, or whatever favor was sought from the official.
An example I heard was a person makes a large donation to a hospital after treatment. The way the law is written it could apply to that situation, and that would be very disruptive.
I am shocked Alito and Thomas were OK with very large gifts to government officials.
That is shocking.
SCOTUS is a joke.
The GOP is a joke.
But some left wing nutjob said something bad about Israel once so that makes it all even.
“According to Brett Kavanaugh and the conservatives, it’s only bribery if it comes from the bribérie region of France. Everything else is just sparkling corruption,” says Elie Mystal on the Supreme Court ruling that a $13k gift is not a bribe.
I read the decision and the dissent.
This is just about whether federal law makes such a payment a crime. The decision does not prevent state and local governments from making such payments a crime, as many do.
The key issue is not when the payment was made. Even the majority agrees that if there is a quid pro quo deal, that is illegal under federal law, even if the payment is made after the official has taken the desired action.
The key issue is when the official gained the expectation of getting paid. The majority would say that if the expectation only arose after the official took action, the federal law does not apply. The dissent would say that is still illegal, provided that the official accepted the subsequent payment with the understanding they were being rewarded for awarding a contract, or whatever favor was sought from the official.
An example I heard was a person makes a large donation to a hospital after treatment. The way the law is written it could apply to that situation, and that would be very disruptive.
The statute requires that the reward/payment have been accepted “corruptly.†So, the prosecution would need to prove the hospital gave impermissible favorable treatment to the patient — perhaps by moving them up the priority list — in expectation of getting that payment. If the prosecution can actually prove that in some specific case, and that the person(s) making the corrupt decision are covered by the law, that does not seem like an unreasonable matter to pursue.
I don’t understand your constant bashing of SCOTUS. Obviously, I don’t see the impact such decisions have on non-US citizens not residing in the US and I don’t see a series of decisions that are not in line with proper legal doctrine. I don’t agree with some of the decisions, such as overturning Roe v Wade, but from what I understand from lawyers who are not politically driven, is that sending it back to the states was not an unreasonable decision (even RBG is on record saying RvW is vulnerable).
And Trump/GOP isn’t exactly getting their way with SCOTUS decisions, which seems to be what is triggering your constant diatribe.
Sure, liberals will rail about decisions they don’t like, just like GOP tribal members, but that doesn’t mean the decisions are wrong.
I read the decision and the dissent.
This is just about whether federal law makes such a payment a crime. The decision does not prevent state and local governments from making such payments a crime, as many do.
The key issue is not when the payment was made. Even the majority agrees that if there is a quid pro quo deal, that is illegal under federal law, even if the payment is made after the official has taken the desired action.
The key issue is when the official gained the expectation of getting paid. The majority would say that if the expectation only arose after the official took action, the federal law does not apply. The dissent would say that is still illegal, provided that the official accepted the subsequent payment with the understanding they were being rewarded for awarding a contract, or whatever favor was sought from the official.
Seems to me that, despite media hysterics, this boils down to a difference of opinion in the court on how well the law is written. The majority is basically saying that the law, as written, doesn’t prohibit what the Government wants it to prohibit, implying that if Congress wants to prohibit gratuities in this law, they need to go back and amend it similar to other statutes that explicitly differentiate between bribery and gratuity. The dissent is basically saying that everyone should understand that the word “reward” is enough to conclude that the law includes gratuity.
This isn’t a case of SCOTUS saying that bribery is ok, or that bribery should be ok if you just shift the payment date and call it gratuity, or that gratuity is always ok and couldn’t ever be a bribe in disguise, etc. It sounds more like what the court is supposed to do, which is indicate a disconnect between what the law says and what the government is trying to do, and handing it back over to Congress to either accept that or adjust the law to get the desired effect.
I read the decision and the dissent.
This is just about whether federal law makes such a payment a crime. The decision does not prevent state and local governments from making such payments a crime, as many do.
The key issue is not when the payment was made. Even the majority agrees that if there is a quid pro quo deal, that is illegal under federal law, even if the payment is made after the official has taken the desired action.
The key issue is when the official gained the expectation of getting paid. The majority would say that if the expectation only arose after the official took action, the federal law does not apply. The dissent would say that is still illegal, provided that the official accepted the subsequent payment with the understanding they were being rewarded for awarding a contract, or whatever favor was sought from the official.
Seems to me that, despite media hysterics, this boils down to a difference of opinion in the court on how well the law is written. The majority is basically saying that the law, as written, doesn’t prohibit what the Government wants it to prohibit, implying that if Congress wants to prohibit gratuities in this law, they need to go back and amend it similar to other statutes that explicitly differentiate between bribery and gratuity. The dissent is basically saying that everyone should understand that the word “reward” is enough to conclude that the law includes gratuity.
This isn’t a case of SCOTUS saying that bribery is ok, or that bribery should be ok if you just shift the payment date and call it gratuity, or that gratuity is always ok and couldn’t ever be a bribe in disguise, etc. It sounds more like what the court is supposed to do, which is indicate a disconnect between what the law says and what the government is trying to do, and handing it back over to Congress to either accept that or adjust the law to get the desired effect.
To me it was the language they used.
They say these are innocuous:
Others are commonplace and might be innocuous. A family gives a holiday tip to the mail carrier. Parents send an end-of-year gift basket to their child’s public school teacher. A college dean gives a college sweatshirt to a city council member who comes to speak at an event. A state legislator’s neighbor drops off a bottle of wine to congratulate her for her work on a new law.
And the guy in question got a check for $13,000. And they go through a whole range of gifts that are allowed.
They could have mentioned that this behavior isn’t necessarily good and the law may need to be clarified. But instead they minimized the behavior over and over and said Congress intended to allow gratuities.
And Trump/GOP isn’t exactly getting their way with SCOTUS decisions, which seems to be what is triggering your constant diatribe.
You’re joking here right?
They are delaying his assinine request for immunity to drag the trial date past the election. If you can’t see that, you’re hopeless.
Thomas is accepting bribes (sorry, “gifts”) all over the place, and his wife is a massive stop the steal booster. Alito also like to accept “gifts”.
Then you have Alito on a recording saying that they are at war against the left "One side or the other is going to win.†(and you can be damned sure he’s doing his best to make it his side). Maybe not the best look for a supposedly impartial judge whose wife is flying idiotic flags and you know… back to that whole “gifts” thing.
Seems to me that, despite media hysterics, this boils down to a difference of opinion in the court on how well the law is written. The majority is basically saying that the law, as written, doesn’t prohibit what the Government wants it to prohibit, implying that if Congress wants to prohibit gratuities in this law, they need to go back and amend it similar to other statutes that explicitly differentiate between bribery and gratuity. The dissent is basically saying that everyone should understand that the word “reward” is enough to conclude that the law includes gratuity.
I largely agree with this analysis of the SCOTUS majority’s reasoning.
My understanding is that federal statute A prohibits in-advance corrupt payments (bribes) for federal officials. This crime requires a mens rea element - prosecution has to show there was an intent to act corruptly. Violation can lead to 10 years in prison.
Federal statute B prohibits ex post facto corrupt payments (gratuities) for federal officials. No mens rea requirement. Violation can lead to 2 years in federal prison.
In the 1980’s, Congress made the federal laws applicable to state/local officials. But at some point they amended it, so that (in SCOTUS majority view), only the statute A bribe provision flows down, not the statute B gratuities provision. As one proof of this conclusion, SCOTUS points out that a federal official would only get 2 years for accepting an improper gratuity (pursuant to statute B), but under the prosecution’s theory that statute A should flow down to state/local level in all cases, a state/local official accepting an improper gratuity could get 10 years. I think there is some intellectual merit to that line of thinking.
So (the majority thinking goes), Congress did make a distinction between bribes and gratuities and has laws against both, but both only apply to federal officials, while only one (the statute A around bribes) gets flowed down to state/local officials. And they avoid grappling with why that might be, on federalism & Congressional wisdom rationales.
One thing that troubles me about this though, is that if a state/local jurisdiction lacks an improper gratuity law, then there’s no way to effectively prosecute that behavior. And if that’s behavior that Congress thinks is inappropriate for governance at the federal level; and Congress has no federalism problem with flowing down the bribery law to local/state level…why is there a loophole that enables improper payments at state/local level that is largely based on when the payment is made? I think that’s a fair question.
isn’t a case of SCOTUS saying that bribery is ok, or that bribery should be ok if you just shift the payment date and call it gratuity, or that gratuity is always ok and couldn’t ever be a bribe in disguise, etc. It sounds more like what the court is supposed to do, which is indicate a disconnect between what the law says and what the government is trying to do, and handing it back over to Congress to either accept that or adjust the law to get the desired effect.
Yes, on a purely academic basis. Though given SCOTUS’ recent behaviors around disclosures of gifts to their own members, and their decisions that ethics rules that apply to federal district and appellate level judges don’t apply to SCOTUS…it’s not a great look. And “not a great look” is getting to be more than just an optics problem in this country and with this SCOTUS - they are undercutting the perceived legitimacy of their own institutions.
that bribery should be ok if you just shift the payment date and call it gratuity
That does seem like the practical effect in terms of federal liability though, unless you can prove the mens rea existed prior to the act (and thus try to nail them under the bribery statute). And I don’t know enough about the mens rea analysis under the federal statute. In this case, there was a $13k payment after the gov’t contract award. Do the corrupt parties have to agree in advance that there will be a cash payment, maybe at a certain amount, in order to meet the mens rea element? Or is a wink & nod, “we’ll take good care of you…” without details on whether it’s cash, or how much, or gifts in kind… is that sufficient to pull an official back into bribery land?
One thing that troubles me about this though, is that if a state/local jurisdiction lacks an improper gratuity law, then there’s no way to effectively prosecute that behavior. And if that’s behavior that Congress thinks is inappropriate for governance at the federal level; and Congress has no federalism problem with flowing down the bribery law to local/state level…why is there a loophole that enables improper payments at state/local level that is largely based on when the payment is made? I think that’s a fair question
Agreed. If Congress thinks they can/should dictate this to the State and local jurisdictions, they should amend the law to make it clear that it covers both bribery and gratuity. Whether or not they should do that is a separate philosophical question about federal vs State authorities.
Though given SCOTUS’ recent behaviors around disclosures of gifts to their own members, and their decisions that ethics rules that apply to federal district and appellate level judges don’t apply to SCOTUS…it’s not a great look.
I agree with this as well. The optics issue is real in terms of confidence in the court. However, separate from the technical reality of the ruling.
…that bribery should be ok if you just shift the payment date and call it gratuity
That does seem like the practical effect in terms of federal liability though, unless you can prove the mens rea existed prior to the act (and thus try to nail them under the bribery statute). And I don’t know enough about the mens rea analysis under the federal statute. In this case, there was a $13k payment after the gov’t contract award. Do the corrupt parties have to agree in advance that there will be a cash payment, maybe at a certain amount, in order to meet the mens rea element? Or is a wink & nod, “we’ll take good care of you…” without details on whether it’s cash, or how much, or gifts in kind… is that sufficient to pull an official back into bribery land?
Well, it’s the practical effect until if and when Congress goes back and updates the law, or local and State jurisdictions enact or update their own laws. As I mentioned before, this seems like SCOTUS saying that the law doesn’t do what you claim to want it to do. It’s then up to Congress to decide if they really want it to do that or not, and if so, update the law.
Distinct from whether or not a certain set of acts violates the law, we can discuss what we think should constitute corruption or bribery or unauthorized gratuity, and how you prove it, etc. Sometimes it’s easy to see that some sort of agreement was made before an official acted a certain way, but a lot of times, proving that might be difficult. A “wink and a nod” is rarely caught on tape or on paper, so that’s why framing these things as “gratuities” is one of the ways people try to skirt the bribery charge. You also get the problem of whether repeated gratuities can really be considered in isolation or should be looked at as part of a pattern. Say you legitimately were naive as to the process and took an action, for which you were letter given a gratuity. That series of events might turn out to be permissible. However, it’s hard to argue moving forward that you remain naive to the fact that you might get a gratuity based on taking similar action. So is there now an unstated tacit agreement in place, or a reasonable expectation that you might receive a quid pro quo? I think you could certainly argue that there is, and that there is established an expectation from the gratuity giver that you’ve accepted that payment and might do so again.
The optics issue is real in terms of confidence in the court. However, separate from the technical reality of the ruling.
Yes, that’s fair.
…that bribery should be ok if you just shift the payment date and call it gratuity
That does seem like the practical effect in terms of federal liability though, unless you can prove the mens rea existed prior to the act (and thus try to nail them under the bribery statute). And I don’t know enough about the mens rea analysis under the federal statute. In this case, there was a $13k payment after the gov’t contract award. Do the corrupt parties have to agree in advance that there will be a cash payment, maybe at a certain amount, in order to meet the mens rea element? Or is a wink & nod, “we’ll take good care of you…” without details on whether it’s cash, or how much, or gifts in kind… is that sufficient to pull an official back into bribery land?
Well, it’s the practical effect until if and when Congress goes back and updates the law, or local and State jurisdictions enact or update their own laws. As I mentioned before, this seems like SCOTUS saying that the law doesn’t do what you claim to want it to do. It’s then up to Congress to decide if they really want it to do that or not, and if so, update the law.
Yeah. I think we all know that Congress is so dysfunctional right now that it couldn’t agree that ice cream is delicious much less close this kind of anti-corruption loophole, but I acknowledge it isn’t the Supreme Court’s job to do that for them.
also get the problem of whether repeated gratuities can really be considered in isolation or should be looked at as part of a pattern. Say you legitimately were naive as to the process and took an action, for which you were letter given a gratuity. That series of events might turn out to be permissible. However, it’s hard to argue moving forward that you remain naive to the fact that you might get a gratuity based on taking similar action. So is there now an unstated tacit agreement in place, or a reasonable expectation that you might receive a quid pro quo? I think you could certainly argue that there is, and that there is established an expectation from the gratuity giver that you’ve accepted that payment and might do so again.
Right. That’s the (at least perceived) Clarence Thomas problem.
I read the decision and the dissent.
This is just about whether federal law makes such a payment a crime. The decision does not prevent state and local governments from making such payments a crime, as many do.
The key issue is not when the payment was made. Even the majority agrees that if there is a quid pro quo deal, that is illegal under federal law, even if the payment is made after the official has taken the desired action.
The key issue is when the official gained the expectation of getting paid. The majority would say that if the expectation only arose after the official took action, the federal law does not apply. The dissent would say that is still illegal, provided that the official accepted the subsequent payment with the understanding they were being rewarded for awarding a contract, or whatever favor was sought from the official.
Seems to me that, despite media hysterics, this boils down to a difference of opinion in the court on how well the law is written. The majority is basically saying that the law, as written, doesn’t prohibit what the Government wants it to prohibit, implying that if Congress wants to prohibit gratuities in this law, they need to go back and amend it similar to other statutes that explicitly differentiate between bribery and gratuity. The dissent is basically saying that everyone should understand that the word “reward” is enough to conclude that the law includes gratuity.
This isn’t a case of SCOTUS saying that bribery is ok, or that bribery should be ok if you just shift the payment date and call it gratuity, or that gratuity is always ok and couldn’t ever be a bribe in disguise, etc. It sounds more like what the court is supposed to do, which is indicate a disconnect between what the law says and what the government is trying to do, and handing it back over to Congress to either accept that or adjust the law to get the desired effect.
To me it was the language they used.
They say these are innocuous:
Others are commonplace and might be innocuous. A family gives a holiday tip to the mail carrier. Parents send an end-of-year gift basket to their child’s public school teacher. A college dean gives a college sweatshirt to a city council member who comes to speak at an event. A state legislator’s neighbor drops off a bottle of wine to congratulate her for her work on a new law.
And the guy in question got a check for $13,000. And they go through a whole range of gifts that are allowed.
They could have mentioned that this behavior isn’t necessarily good and the law may need to be clarified. But instead they minimized the behavior over and over and said Congress intended to allow gratuities.
I think the majority has a fair point, captured by Wimsey, that the history of the federal law’s treatment of bribes vs gratuities suggests that Congress did not intend a 10-year prison term for state-level gratuity crimes.
But, the majority’s reference to innocuous gifts was dubious, at best. As the dissent explains, the law requires that the gratuity have been accepted “corruptly.†The $25 gift card to your 6th grade teacher after the end of the school year just isn’t going to come close to satisfying that requirement.
If we change the hypothetical to a family that always gives a $1000 gift card to teachers who give little Timmy an A, and no gift for lower grades, maybe there is no bribery because there is no express quid pro quo. But, if the teachers all know about this historic gift-giving practice and there is strong evidence that Timmy’s work did not merit an A in some class, that seems to fall within the statute’s literal words. At the very least, it is not correct for them to suggest that gratuities to teachers are inherently innocuous.