Supreme Court makes it harder to prosecute officials for taking bribes - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The Supreme Court on Monday made it much harder to prosecute public officials for bribery, ruling that governors, legislators, mayors or their advisors who take secret cash from wealthy people for setting up special meetings are not guilty of a crime. [B]The justices by a 8-0 vote overturned the bribery conviction of former Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell[/B] because prosecutors did not prove that he took a direct “official action” in exchange for the $175,000 in gifts and loans he received from a businessman who was promoting a dietary supplement made from tobacco. McDonnell’s was a “tawdry tale” of “Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns,” conceded Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The former governor, a rising star in Republican circles and a favorite of Christian conservatives, was deeply in debt when he and his wife accepted luxury gifts and $120,000 in “loans” from Jonnie Williams, the chief executive of Star Scientific who was touting his tobacco-based product. In return, McDonnell set up meetings and a luncheon at the governor’s mansion to help promote the supplement, and he told several state aides to meet with Williams to discuss its benefits and the possibility of state-sponsored research. In the end, the state and its medical schools said they were not interested and took no action. Roberts stressed that the governor did not order or “exert pressure” on state aides to approve research on the suspect supplement. “Setting up a meeting, calling another public official or hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an ‘official act,’” Roberts said in McDonnell vs. United States. During oral arguments, several justices voiced concerns about overzealous prosecutors who might criminalize routine activities by bringing corruption charges against local officials simply for setting up meetings with people who supported them and their campaigns. Before the ruling, Justice Department attorneys had warned the high court that such a ruling would legalize a “pay to play” approach to government where people with money would get special access. Fred Wertheimer, a longtime advocate of campaign funding limits, said the ruling will “further undermine the already low confidence of citizens in government and public office holders.” Former University of Chicago law professor Professor Albert Alschuler said the decision seems to say “any official can openly take money for providing access to another official. If I were secretly to pay the president’s chief of staff $1 million to set up a 15-minute meeting with the president, almost everyone would say I’d bribed him. Astonishingly, however, there are eight people who’d disagree, and they are all on the Supreme Court.” [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-mcdonnell-corruption-20160627-snap-story.html[/url] So there you have it, it's impossible to convict someone for bribery. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("- No editorialised titles" - OvB))[/highlight]

[quote]In the end, the state and its medical schools said they were not interested and took no action.[/quote] So, bribery is legal as long as you do not provide the desired service to the person paying the bribe? Well that's interesting.

What, did I wake up in the onion-verse?

[QUOTE=Reshy;50608490][url]http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-mcdonnell-corruption-20160627-snap-story.html[/url] So there you have it, it's impossible to convict someone for bribery.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say impossible, but you should have wrote that it's unlikely to convict someone for bribery if they don't act in response, and to the benefit of, the briber. Also this: [quote]During oral arguments, several justices voiced concerns about overzealous prosecutors who might criminalize routine activities by bringing corruption charges against local officials simply for setting up meetings with people who supported them and their campaigns.[/quote]

[I]Why[/I] do we have to just witness blatant corruption like this every second day?

[QUOTE=BioWaster;50608577][I]Why[/I] do we have to just witness blatant corruption like this every second day?[/QUOTE] Because it's systemic, we're electing people who are corrupt who will enable further corruption.

Sensationalist. Read the fucking article everyone before you get out your pitchforks. It's bad, but not that bad.

[quote]Roberts stressed that[B] the governor did not order or “exert pressure” on state aides to approve research on the suspect supplement.[/B] “Setting up a meeting, calling another public official or hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an ‘official act,’” Roberts said in McDonnell vs. United States. [B]During oral arguments, several justices voiced concerns about overzealous prosecutors who might criminalize routine activities by bringing corruption charges against local officials simply for setting up meetings with people who supported them and their campaigns.[/B][/quote] Basically: [I]"You can give me that stack of cash and gifts but no promises it's going to get you anywhere."[/I] How many of you made it past the title? [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] [quote]The federal bribery law makes it a crime for a public official to “corruptly demand, seek, receive, accept or agree to receive or accept anything of value personally...in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act.”[/quote] I mean if you take money from some schmuck trying to bribe you but never go through with the bribe is it even a bribe? It would've been a bribe if the Medical schools overwhelmingly approved of the research, and a few Deens and leading researchers were seen driving fancy new sports cars all of a sudden I feel like if you interpret that too loosely you could basically say anything was a bribe. You invited the Senator out to dinner at the new high-end steak house? [I]Bribe![/I] Your gift at the Congresswoman's annual Chirstmas party was larger than average? [I]What are you trying to pull??[/I]

It's not quite as bad as other bribery cases out there. Some states do have tougher bribery laws than others, what shouldn't have been done was setup a lunch in at the governor's mansion. While he probably paid for the meal himself and was acting as a citizen not the governor at the time, it does appear to be a conflict of interest when it's done in the government's property. He should have setup a lunch at some restaurant instead