This Supreme Court has redefined the meaning of corruption

The U.S. Supreme Court is loosening regulations on corruption, which can likely have dire consequences for American democracy.

The most up-to-date example of this worrying trend was the case Snyder v. United States. At first glance, this may increasingly look like a good, shaky case about whether a Part of the US Criminal Code that the bribery law also includes “tips”.

But the court's decision of June 26, 2024, limits the authority of federal prosecutors to pursue corrupt government officials.

Snyder follows a pattern of the present Supreme Court I actually have documented in three booksSince John Roberts became chief justice of the court in 2006, it has been nearly unimaginable for federal prosecutors to prosecute corruption, particularly on the state and native levels.

Gift, tip or bribe?

At the middle of the Snyder case was a former mayor of Portage, Indiana, who charged with violating the Federal Anti-Corruption Act during his tenure as mayor. He accepted $13,000 from a trucking company in 2014 after town signed a $1.1 million contract to buy garbage trucks.

Mayor James Snyder showed up on the trucking company and said, “I need money.” He claimed the payment was a consulting fee or a tip.

In a 6-3 decision, the court's conservative majority overruled along ideological lines the lower court's ruling that convicted Snyder of bribery and the appeals court that upheld his conviction. The mayor mustn’t have been prosecuted, the justices said, since the federal anti-corruption law, Section 666, was at issue. only covers bribes and no suggestions.

And bribes, it was said, were paid before an official act and never afterward.

In his majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained why it’s undesirable for federal prosecutors to go after small-time local crooks. First, he argued, many states and cities have already got their very own laws on politicians and suggestions, so the Justice Department doesn’t have to play Big Brother.

“Section 666 does not supplement these federal and local laws by sentencing 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even mundane tips,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Deregulation of campaign finance

The Supreme Court has also limited what constitutes corruption in the realm of ​​campaign finance.

In a 2007 Case called WRTL IIThe court tore an enormous hole in a federal campaign finance law, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also generally known as McCain-Feingold. Among other things, McCain-Feingold had banned “campaign communications” if firms and unions Buy campaign ads within the run-up to the vote.

In WRTL II, the Court ruled that “corruption” in political campaigns “must be of the 'quid pro quo' type, that is, an individual or corporation makes a contribution or expenditure in exchange for an act by a public official.”

This definition implies that a briber should be downright brazen to demand a specific vote from a member of Congress in exchange for money. Most bribery cases in the true world are more subtle, because the Supreme Court once recognized.

Under Roberts' predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a majority of justices – each left and right – viewed the efforts of political donors to set the agenda of political parties and elected officials as an impermissible corruption of the political process.

As the The Rehnquist Court once concludedCorruption occurs “not only in the form of quid pro quo arrangements, but also in the improper influence on the judgment of a public official and in the appearance of such influence.”

Money in politics

The most notorious tolerance of cash in politics by the Roberts Court was Citizens unitedThe 2010 Citizens United ruling held that corporations have the First Amendment right to spend as much money as they need on political ads in any American election.

Limiting corporate spending on political ads has a “chilling effect” on corporate free speech, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, and the federal government's “anti-corruption interest” is just not as strong as that concern.

The court reiterated this stance in 2014 when it struck down the federal cap of $123,000 on total per-person contributions to federal candidates over a two-year election cycle. McCutcheon v. FECThe Court again insisted that campaign finance rules should focus only on corruption within the sense of a quid pro quo strategy – that’s, “dollars for political favors.”

“Campaign finance restrictions that pursue other objectives improperly influence the government” in deciding who wins an election, Roberts wrote in his majority opinion.

The presiding judge was not swayed by the argument that strict campaign finance rules ensured that wealthy and poor had equal say in elections.

“As desirable as it may seem, creating a 'level playing field' is not an acceptable government goal,” he wrote in McCutcheon.

Today, individual donors can put unlimited funds into the federal election.

Fraud redefined

The Supreme Court under Roberts has also significantly narrowed the definition of corruption in cases of white-collar crime.

In 2016 McDonnell v. United StatesThe judges declared that Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell did nothing fallacious when he promoted a dubious health product on behalf of a person who had paid for McDonnell's wife's clothing and his daughter's wedding.

Four years later, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government couldn’t prosecute a girl named Bridget Anne Kelly involved within the Bridgegate scandal of 2013when New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's staff, including Kelly, intentionally caused a choking traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge to punish considered one of Christie's political opponents.

“Not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan, normally considered a liberal judge, in Kelly v. United States.

The Supreme Court continued this trend in a 2023 case called Percoco v. United States.

Joseph Percoco, an adviser to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, was convicted of fraud in 2018 for $315,000 from two New York firms to advertise policies that favored their firms. The Supreme Court rejected the convictionlargely because the cash modified hands while he was working on Cuomo's 2014 campaign – meaning he was technically not in government.

Nevertheless, Percoco used a New York government phone roughly 837 times during this era, suggesting that he desired to be perceived by the surface world as a government insider with access to political power.

Traditionally, private individuals have “dominated and controlled“Government dealings of the type Percoco was accused of might be guilty of what’s generally known as 'honest services fraud' under federal law. Since Percoco, that term has come to incorporate only bribes and kickbacks.

The Supreme Court’s lax attitude toward corruption threatens the integrity of American democracy, as I explain in my latest book: “Corporatocracy.” From McDonnell to Kelly to Percoco to Snyder, the House rulings have undermined anti-corruption law. This sends a message to the corrupt: “You can be corrupt without facing legal consequences.”

Corrupt people get away with it, while a superb government takes one other hit.