SCOTUS Makes Corruption Easier
Apparently, ex post facto payments are cool.
Via Vox: The Supreme Court rules that state officials can engage in a little corruption, as a treat
On a 6-3 party-line vote, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that state officials may accept “gratuities” from people who wish to reward them for their official actions, despite a federal anti-corruption statute that appears to ban such rewards.
[…]
Snyder turns on a distinction between “bribes” and “gratuities.” As Kavanaugh writes, “bribes are payments made or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the official with respect to that future official act.” Gratuities, by contrast, “are typically payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation.” (Emphasis added.)
It strikes me as absurd to suggest that the timing of such a payment determines whether it is corrupt or not is rather problematic. As a faculty colleague asked me yesterday, “If I give them all As and they decide to give me $1000 as a gratuity, that’s cool, right?”
I suppose withe Trump’s proposal not to tax tips, its a win-win all around.
The basics of the case from the NYT:
The case before the court, Snyder v. United States, No. 23-108, concerned James Snyder, a former mayor of Portage, Ind., a city of about 38,000 people near Lake Michigan. In 2013, while Mr. Snyder was mayor, the city awarded two contracts for a garbage truck company, Great Lakes Peterbilt. Portage bought five garbage trucks for about $1.1 million.
In 2014, after the process was complete, the company cut Mr. Snyder a check for $13,000 for what he later said were consulting services.
The F.B.I. and federal prosecutors said the bidding process had been manipulated to ensure the company prevailed. Investigators said the money was a gratuity for the garbage truck contracts, but Mr. Snyder said it was payment for his consulting services as a contractor for Peterbilt.
A jury convicted Mr. Snyder of accepting an illegal gratuity, and a federal judge sentenced him to more than a year in prison. On appeal, Mr. Snyder argued that the federal statute criminalized only bribes, not after-the-fact gratuities. A federal appeals court affirmed his conviction, and Mr. Snyder petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case.
The Atlantic’s Ian MacGougal is a little more direct in his description:
The bid-rigging scheme was a classic of the genre. A small Rust Belt city needed new garbage trucks. Its mayor and two of his donors needed money. The mayor, a struggling mortgage lender, owed years’ worth of back taxes; the donors were two brothers desperate to save the truck dealership they’d spent the past few years running into the ground. So the mayor fixed things to steer the garbage-truck contracts to the brothers, a million-dollar cushion under their failing dealership. Thankful for this good turn, they cut the mayor a check for $13,000 ostensibly for some consulting work, the substance of which was never clear.
[…]
As far as federal law is concerned, state and local officials are now generally free to accept gifts small and large—$13,000 checks, lavish vacations, cash-stuffed valises—from the beneficiaries of their actions in office. (State and local laws still apply to them, but only a small fraction of corruption cases are brought by state prosecutors.)
MacDougal goes on to detail other recent Court decisions that have weakened anti-corruption laws (and rightly notes all of this comes at a time wherein public trust in our institutions is fading).
The notion that the timing is what matters, rather than other aspects of the case (and what strikes me as the clear intent of the law) is absurd. Legitimate consulting activities before or after a given event can be demonstrated. But just calling something “consulting” does not make it so.
It is difficult for me to read the text of the law and come to the conclusion that the timing of the payments is the key issue.
To put the whole thing in meme form, because I guess this is how I can maintain my sanity:
Back to Vox, the least surprising part of all of this:
It’s also notable that neither Justice Clarence Thomas nor Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom have accepted expensive gifts from politically active Republican billionaires, recused themselves from the case. Thomas and Alito both joined Kavanaugh’s opinion reading the anti-corruption statute narrowly.
Be sure to tip your Justices if they did a good job!
I am shocked, shocked to learn the court’s originalist/textualist will may have again abrogated its own stated ideology to push a preferred outcome.
Government bribes are not a one time thing.
Naturally bidders presenting proposals can arrange a bribe/kickback schedule in advance, as no one will ever admit to doing so, and there won’t be any witnesses around. And since it’s legal now, it’s a legitimate business expense that can be deducted from taxes. So now it won’t be Boeing, XpaceX, etc. paying bribes and kickbacks, it will be you when you pay your taxes. And jobs for corporate money laundering will dry up.
To be sure, some people are stupid, and others prideful, and will grow careless and blatant in their bribery. What good is it to buy politicians if all it does is net you a few billions? People have to know what big shot you are.
A few may fall, before the law firm of Leo, Crow, Thomas, et al change the rules again in your favor. Don’t forget to tip the justices on the way out.
Given last night, I hope Sotomayor, and Kagan, are reviewing their retirement plans.
At the risk of being a bore because I’ve repeated myself (as opposed to my usual being a bore because I’m an annoying pendant), I will repeat that 50 or so years ago
would have been the punchline of a joke from Laugh-In or maybe SNL’s Weekend Update segment.
Normally, I might also say something to the effect of 250 or so years isn’t a bad run for a country, but in a historical perspective, only 250 years is kinda pathetic. As is this decision. Gonna be an interesting 4 years no matter how November shakes out, but not in a good way. 🙁
@gVOR10: Wha’choo talkin’ bout, Willis? Age is only a number and it’s wrong to suggest that boomers in the primes of their lives should retire. Where will we find women of their caliber with their experience and abilities?
I can hear the cheers and celebrations at Chicago City Hall from miles away.
The Supremes just gave themselves, especially Thomas and Alito, a get out of jail free card
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
I can’t think of any other country running with a 250 year old constitution, so I’d say it’s a good run.
France has been how many different countries during that time?
This is relatively easy to fix with legislation, is it not?
The court ruled (incorrectly) on what the law said, they did not find a new constitutional right to receive gratuities.
@Gustopher: oh boy. Can’t wait to go through DC in the Terrors.
I wonder what book advances fall under? And since only Federal Law would likely apply, the impact in Indian Country (Casino contracts, etc). How many cases are getting overturned now?
Regardless, there should be a legislative fix if Congress cares.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
@Gustopher:
The usual comparison is Rome. Let’s see:
The Roman Republic was formally founded in 509 BCE, when the last king of Rome, Tarquinius Superbus (aka Tarquin the Proud), was deposed. Formally the Republic ended with the accession of Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus Augustus as emperor (nominally Princeps Senatus, or commonly Leader of the Senate) in 27 BCE. So not quite 500 years.
The Roman empire continued being Rome, though, for a while. I think the Western Roman Empire fell in 450-480 CE or so, with the last emperor being Romulus Augustulus. Not quite 1,000 years all told.
One can argue Rome continued in the Eastern Roman Empire (aka Byzantine Empire) until the 1450s CE, when it fell to the Ottomans.
So, between almost 500 to almost 2000 years.
I think 250<500
Sounds like Hunter and Joe Biden need to be tried by the Supreme Court…………..
@Gustopher: Depends on how you define “relatively easy” I guess. But no, Congress as currently configured and Constituted will not even address the problem, let alone solve it. Easily or otherwise. The legislature of a functioning nation might though.
What SCOTUS doesn’t seem to realize is that corruption is like a pregnancy—once you start down a certain path, you don’t get to do a U-turn without a LOT of effort because it’s just easier to keep going down the path.
@Gustopher:
In theory, yes.
In practice, I am less certain.
@Gustopher:
Not a constitutional right, but clearly an open barn door that will exist until it is closed, which I expect won’t be soon.
@Grumpy realist:
What makes you think they don’t know that – from personal experience? It’s not a question of knowing, it’s a question of caring.
@Steven L. Taylor: I am more optimistic. No one wants to be the party supporting open corruption — they prefer a fig leaf of respectability.
I would give this better than even odds of being fixed in the lame duck session after the election, when there is less of a penalty for bipartisan legislation. Sooner if someone can come up with a clever acronym.
@Gustopher: I think inaction is far too easy and hence nothing will be done.
I would be quite happy to be wrong, but think I’m not.
@Steven L. Taylor: Additionally, collective memory among American voters and politically active/interested is measured in nanoseconds these days, so this “outrage”–to the extent that it’s even noted at all–will last until Wheel of Fortune comes on, at which point people will remember that Vanna is rumored to be asking for release from her contract because she’s not comfortable working with Ryan Seacrest. Priorities.
@Gustopher:
As easy as getting waiters to outlaw tips, I reckon. Yeah, that’ll happen.
On what planet do the Supremes live where payment for an item or a service does not, most often, follow the delivery or performance of such?
@JohnSF: The Planet of the Super (rich) Friends?
ETA: Although they might only live in Korea, too. Most services are paid for in advance there, too. Doctor, dentist, pharmacy, many sit-down restaurants, sometime the dry cleaner and shoe repair guy.