The Supreme Court rules that state officials can engage in a little corruption, as a treat
The Supreme Court rules that state officials can engage in a little corruption, as a treat
Snyder v. US is the Republican justices’ latest decision weakening anti-corruption laws.
You're viewing a single thread.
Posted this in another thread on the issue but worth saying again because most people see to be confused as to the actual implications of this ruling:
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.
Tldr the ruling only was about in relation to one law. The party may be guilty of a form of corruption under a different law.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
Read page 2 of the syllabus where it says "Held:" until page 4 if you want the shorter version.
Otherwise there's a 16 page explanation under the "opinion of the court" section directly after the syllabus, for those who are interested in a longer explanation.
Except SCOTUS will just strike down the next one too. The modern court has never supported bribery charges that come before it.
Edit to add a quick history from the last 25 years.
Sun Diamond Growers - The government must prove the bribe is actually connected to the act.
Skilling - Corruption charges require a second party to give you a bribe or kickback, self dealing is fine.
Citizens United - Money is political speech, and you can spend as much as you want on an election.
McDonnell - Acting as a pay to play gatekeeper is fine. Even if the government connects the bribe to the act.
Ted Cruz - Politicians can keep unspent campaign funds as long as they maintain the fiction of having lent the campaign money.
Snyder - Kickbacks aren't actionable. <- We are here.
Can I get a teal deer for that tldr?
TLDR of the TLDR:
Court said the gov charged him with the wrong thing. Look for another charge, he's probably screwed.