Supreme Court strikes anti-corruption law that bars officials from taking gifts
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned part of an anti-corruption law, distinguishing between bribery and gratuities. The ruling impacts state and local officials and reflects a trend of narrowing public corruption laws.
Read original article
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to strike down part of a federal anti-corruption law that prohibited state and local officials from accepting gifts valued over $5,000 from donors who had previously benefited from their actions. The 6-3 decision overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who received a $13,000 payment from a local dealership after helping them secure city contracts. The court differentiated between bribery, requiring proof of an illegal deal, and gratuities, which could be gifts for past favors without an illicit agreement. Justices in the majority emphasized that the law in question pertains to bribery, leaving regulation of gratuities to state and local governments. The dissenting justices expressed concerns about officials using their positions for personal gain. This ruling could impact around 20 million state and local officials covered by the anti-corruption law. The decision is part of a trend where the Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of public corruption laws in recent years, often through unanimous rulings, by concluding that certain prosecutions exceeded legal boundaries.
Related
Amazon retaliated after employee walkout over the return-to-office policyholders
The NLRB filed a complaint against Amazon for allegedly firing an employee involved in organizing walkouts against the return-to-office policy. Amazon denies claims, citing underperformance. NLRB seeks remedies. Hearing set for February 4th.
Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves
A network of political nonprofits, known as 527s, misallocates over 90% of donations to fundraising rather than causes. ProPublica's investigation exposes lack of transparency, regulatory loopholes, and concerns over legitimacy.
US prosecutors recommend Justice Department criminally charge Boeing
US prosecutors recommend criminal charges against Boeing for violating a settlement related to 737 MAX crashes. Boeing disputes claims, faces potential charges, and negotiates with the Justice Department. Families seek hefty fines and prosecution.
Boeing should face criminal charges, say US prosecutors – reports
US prosecutors recommend Boeing face criminal charges for violating a settlement related to 737 Max crashes. Boeing may face consequences for failing to implement an ethics program as agreed in the settlement.
SCOTUS Rules That US Government Can Continue Talking to Social Media Companies
The Supreme Court allows US government to communicate with social media companies, overturning an injunction. Court finds lack of evidence for direct censorship injuries. Decision may increase government-platform interaction.
20 commentsOnce it's well known that I like giving politicians gratuities and that I always give gratuities, all it takes is a conversation and the ball is rolling. I never have to say any of the words or phrases during that conversation that magically turn things into a bribe; it's understood that once the deed is done the money will be on the way.
This ruling shreds the concept that even the appearance of impropriety is bad.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli...
> Although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a state or local official after the official act may be unethical or illegal under other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate §666
An artifact failing to correctly implement intended requirements should be familiar around here :)
I see no difference
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the last-resort, the fail-safe, the watcher of the US legal system. But somehow it has become infected with partisan BS and now we have to wonder Who watches the watchers? How do we get out of this mess?
An astoundingly stupid ruling, but one that makes sense when you look at some of the 'gratuity' the current justices have received.
The basic idea, AFAICT, is that _federal_ law should not punish _state_ crimes under this specific section of the law (§666). As noted elsewhere, there might be other laws on the books for bribes, but §666 doesn't apply here.
The distinction between "gratuities"/ "gifts" and "bribes" is artificial to me, as a normal person, but I understand that the law makes a distinction.
I'm sympathetic to the federalism argument (every state should have anti-bribery laws so that _states_ themselves can take them to court instead of waiting for the feds!).
But I don't understand why someone would explicitly write a law that tries to draw a fat line between bribes and gifts. Is that the legal equivalent of a bug? A bad law?
What an utter farce.
https://www.amazon.com/Road-Unfreedom-Russia-Europe-America/...
The only time punishment should happen is if a gift/bribe/whatever is not reported. Clarence Thomas's BS about not thinking it was a gift and didn't need reporting should subject him to significant legal penalties.
[edit] Last minute thought: whenever a public official takes a bribe, they should be required to wear a sticker on their suit with the logo of the bribing organization just like Formula One racers have on their suits and cars.
Related
Amazon retaliated after employee walkout over the return-to-office policyholders
The NLRB filed a complaint against Amazon for allegedly firing an employee involved in organizing walkouts against the return-to-office policy. Amazon denies claims, citing underperformance. NLRB seeks remedies. Hearing set for February 4th.
Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves
A network of political nonprofits, known as 527s, misallocates over 90% of donations to fundraising rather than causes. ProPublica's investigation exposes lack of transparency, regulatory loopholes, and concerns over legitimacy.
US prosecutors recommend Justice Department criminally charge Boeing
US prosecutors recommend criminal charges against Boeing for violating a settlement related to 737 MAX crashes. Boeing disputes claims, faces potential charges, and negotiates with the Justice Department. Families seek hefty fines and prosecution.
Boeing should face criminal charges, say US prosecutors – reports
US prosecutors recommend Boeing face criminal charges for violating a settlement related to 737 Max crashes. Boeing may face consequences for failing to implement an ethics program as agreed in the settlement.
SCOTUS Rules That US Government Can Continue Talking to Social Media Companies
The Supreme Court allows US government to communicate with social media companies, overturning an injunction. Court finds lack of evidence for direct censorship injuries. Decision may increase government-platform interaction.