Bribery of officials in power in government has always occurred, but until now it has always been illegal. The Supreme Court has now changed that. Herewith some excerpts from an incisive commentary in an op-ed piece in The Guardian:
"Did you know you could give your local government officials tips when they do things you like? Brett Kavanaugh thinks you can. In fact, if you’re rich enough, says the US supreme court, you can now pay off state and local officials for government acts that fit your policy preferences or advance your interests. You can give them lavish gifts, send them on vacations, or simply cut them checks. You can do all of this so long as the cash, gifts or other “gratuities” are provided after the service, and not before it – and so long as a plausible deniability of the meaning and intent of these “gratuities” is maintained.That was the ruling authored by Kavanaugh in Snyder v United States, a 6-3 opinion issued on Wednesday, in which the supreme court dealt the latest blow to federal anti-corruption law. In the case, which was divided along ideological lines, the court held that “gratuities” – that is, post-facto gifts and payments – are not technically “bribes”, and therefore not illegal. Bribes are only issued before the desired official act, you see, and their meaning is explicit; a more vague, less vulgarly transactional culture of “gratitude” for official acts, expressed in gifts and payments of great value, is supposed to be something very different. The court has thereby continued its long effort to legalize official corruption, using the flimsiest of pretexts to rob federal anti-corruption statutes of all meaning.The case concerns James Snyder, who in 2013 was serving as the mayor of small-town Portage, Indiana. Late that year, the city of Portage awarded a contract to Great Lakes Peterbilt, a trucking company, and bought five tow trucks from them; a few weeks later, Snyder asked for and accepted a check for $13,000 from the company. Snyder was found guilty of corruption and sentenced to 21 months in federal prison. He argued that the kickback was not illegal because it came after he awarded a contract to the company that ultimately paid him off, not before.Absurdly the US supreme court agreed, classifying such payments as mere tokens of appreciation and claiming they are not illegal when they are not the product of an explicit agreement meant to influence official acts in exchange for money...For an example, we need look no further than the conservative justices of the supreme court itself, who have become notorious, in recent years, for accepting lavish gifts and chummy intimacy from rightwing billionaires. According to investigative reporting by ProPublica, Clarence Thomas has accepted vacations, real estate purchases, tuition for his young relatives, and seemingly innumerable private jet trips from the billionaire Harlan Crow, as well as financing for an RV from another wealthy patron, Anthony Welters. Thomas has argued that these gifts and favors are merely the “personal hospitality” of “close personal friends”...Adding money – or, in the court’s parlance, “gratuities” – to these arrangements only makes this more obvious. It is not a coincidence that the court has chosen to legalize for state and local officials exactly the sort of corruption that they partake of so conspicuously themselves."
Related: Kleptocracy and kakistocracy explained.
There are all kinds of suggestions about how to clean up SCOTUS.
ReplyDeleteMy suggestion would be to ban Harvard and Yale graduates until these schools show they also teach ethics. This idea that these are the best law schools is been disproved by the dinguses on the court. And that includes the dissenting liberals who are still going along with their colleagues.
"Can't today, I'm busy watching the season finale of The United States"
ReplyDeletehttps://nagonthelake.blogspot.com/2024/06/disappointing-debate.html
Delete"He argued that the kickback was not illegal because it came after he awarded a contract to the company that ultimately paid him off, not before."
ReplyDeleteThat's how they do it in Congress and the private sector, at least for them with the lapel pins to gain access to the revolving doors.
I deeply question the morals of any government employee that accepts a "gratuity". I guess we can remove "quid pro quo" from the dictionary and put "gratuity" in its place. That the Supreme Court now decides things without its moral implication is astounding. Sounds like Monday we will see how much this is really true when they rule on presidential immunity.
ReplyDeleteWe have the finest government money can buy.
ReplyDeletexoxoxoBruce