Bribe vs. Campaign Contribution

The Supreme Court has spent gaggles of time dealing with the right to make campaign contributions, freeing up SuperPacs to do their elitists’ bidding with virtually no meaningful limitations, but they haven’t set standards for the line between bribery and political contributions, a line that seems to beg to be crossed. Federal anti-corruption statutes (and a host of state ones) criminalize soliciting or accepting money with the intent by the paying party of being rewarded or influenced in official actions. Such prosecutions often involve charges of bribery, extortion, and mail and wire fraud, among others, some of which involved campaign contributions alleged to be bribes. Politicians seeking “campaign contributions” are often charged with corruption under that standard when they cross that “pay for play” line. But exactly where is that line clearly drawn?

The billions of dollars funding lobbyists and political campaigns, especially from well-heeled special interests which have regulations, lucrative federal contracts and taxes in their focus, are not always being spent by folks simply expressing their political views. They want something. It appears that the more generic the want, the more it falls on the correct side of the law, and the more specific it is (particularly if there is some sort of tie between the expectation and the contribution), the more likely it crosses that nebulous line.

“The Supreme Court’s guidance on the issue is thin. In 1991, it ruled that a campaign contribution could be a bribe if prosecutors proved a quid pro quo — that the contribution was ‘made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act.’… In a subsequent case, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the quid pro quo need not be expressly stated. But lower courts have differed, since then, on exactly what standards apply…

“‘The Supreme Court needs to address this issue and provide guidance to the lower courts, prosecutors, politicians, donors and the general public,’ wrote U.S. District Judge Myron H. Thompson, who was appointed to the federal bench in 1980… He added: ‘Much ink has been spilled over the contours of campaign finance law. Far less attention has been paid to what actually constitutes a ‘bribe.’ ’ ‘A precise definition, Thompson wrote, was needed to bring cohesion to campaign finance jurisprudence, ‘as the government’s interest in curbing corruption is now the sole basis for placing limits on campaign contributions.’” Cited in the Washington Post, August 12^th.

If you can spend your money in vast piles without meaningful accountability to press your personal agenda under the guise of free speech… anonymously even… what’s the difference in spending your vast piles of money with a direct wink and a nod to the candidate enjoying the benefits? They know the rules, and they know that if they don’t play your game, these politicos won’t get money for their next campaign. You don’t even have to say anything. Who’s kidding whom? The Supreme Court has created the perfect vehicle for well-funded special interests to make clear purchases of the policies they seek with a perpetual “get of jail free” card, an exemption from prosecution for corruption.

I’m Peter Dekom, and we seem to be living in a “cash-and-carry” approximation of what was once a democracy.