Some law scholars fear the Supreme Court’s Monday decision to overturn a high-profile bribery conviction will make it more difficult for the Justice Department to bring anticorruption or bribery prosecutions against U.S. officials.
Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell was found guilty of accepting more than $165,000 in gifts and loans from Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams in exchange for pushing his dietary supplement. But the high court voted to narrow the scope of an anticorruption law that prohibits public officials from accepting gifts in exchange for “official action.”
Jessica Tillipman, a lecturer at the George Washington University Law School, told Yahoo News that it’s going to be “much, much tougher” for prosecutors to gather enough evidence to reach this new standard of corruption. That is, authorities will need to establish documented, overt pressure.
“What’s shocking in this instance is that your average American looks at this case and sees corruption,” Tillipman said. “There’s a distance between the law and what citizens consider corruption.”
Tillipman said academics who teach and write about anticorruption were concerned that the ruling would come down this way as soon as the Supreme Court accepted it.
McDonnell maintains that he never took “official action” to help Williams or put any pressure on other public servants to take such actions. But McDonnell did help arrange meetings for Williams with Virginia health officials and appear at promotional events. He maintains that the Justice Department was persecuting him for doing something that came with the territory of his position.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion for the unanimous Supreme Court decision that the instructions to the trial jury for what constitutes an “official act” were broad enough that it might stop U.S. officials from interacting with their constituents.
“There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term ‘official act’ leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this court.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scotus-bob-mcdonnell-corrupt-officials-000000577.html?nhp=1
Good decision, right?
Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell was found guilty of accepting more than $165,000 in gifts and loans from Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams in exchange for pushing his dietary supplement. But the high court voted to narrow the scope of an anticorruption law that prohibits public officials from accepting gifts in exchange for “official action.”
Jessica Tillipman, a lecturer at the George Washington University Law School, told Yahoo News that it’s going to be “much, much tougher” for prosecutors to gather enough evidence to reach this new standard of corruption. That is, authorities will need to establish documented, overt pressure.
“What’s shocking in this instance is that your average American looks at this case and sees corruption,” Tillipman said. “There’s a distance between the law and what citizens consider corruption.”
Tillipman said academics who teach and write about anticorruption were concerned that the ruling would come down this way as soon as the Supreme Court accepted it.
McDonnell maintains that he never took “official action” to help Williams or put any pressure on other public servants to take such actions. But McDonnell did help arrange meetings for Williams with Virginia health officials and appear at promotional events. He maintains that the Justice Department was persecuting him for doing something that came with the territory of his position.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion for the unanimous Supreme Court decision that the instructions to the trial jury for what constitutes an “official act” were broad enough that it might stop U.S. officials from interacting with their constituents.
“There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term ‘official act’ leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this court.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scotus-bob-mcdonnell-corrupt-officials-000000577.html?nhp=1
Good decision, right?