This Supreme Court has redefined the meaning of corruption

The U.S. Supreme Court Deregulates Corruption, Undermining American Democracy

The U.S. Supreme Court is deregulating corruption, with arguably grim consequences for American democracy.

The Snyder v. United States Case

The latest example of this troubling trend was the case known as Snyder v. United States. At first glance, this may have seemed like a narrow, wonky case about whether a part of the U.S. criminal code that outlaws bribery also covers “gratuities.”

Yet the court’s decision, issued on June 26, 2024, kneecaps federal prosecutors’ power to go after corrupt government officials.

Snyder follows a pattern of the current Supreme Court I’ve documented in three books. Since John Roberts became its chief justice in 2006, the court has made prosecuting corruption, especially at the state and local level, nearly impossible for federal prosecutors.

Gift, Gratuity, or Bribe?

The Snyder case centered on a former mayor of Portage, Indiana, who was charged with violating federal anti-corruption law while he was mayor. He accepted US$13,000 from a truck company in 2014 after the city had signed a $1.1 million contract to buy trash trucks.

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

In a 6-3 decision, along ideological lines, the court’s conservative majority overruled the lower court that convicted Snyder of bribery and the appeals court that had affirmed his conviction. The mayor should not have been prosecuted, the justices said, because federal anti-corruption statute Section 666 in question covers only bribes and not gratuities.

And bribes, it said, are paid before an official action, not after that official action is complete.

In his majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained why it’s not desirable for federal prosecutors to go after small-time local crooks. For one thing, he argued, many states and cities already have their own laws about politicians and gratuities; thus, the Department of Justice need not play Big Brother.

“Section 666 does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Deregulating Campaign Finance

The Supreme Court has also been narrowing what counts as corruption in campaign finance.

In a 2007 case called WRTL II, the court blew a huge hole in a federal campaign finance law called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as McCain-Feingold. Among other regulations, McCain-Feingold had barred “electioneering communication,” when corporations and unions buy campaign ads in the lead-up to voting.

In WRTL II, the court ruled that “corruption” in political campaigns must be “of the ‘quid pro quo’ variety, whereby an individual or entity makes a contribution or expenditure in exchange for some action by an official.”

This definition means that a briber must be cartoonishly bold in demanding a specific vote from a lawmaker in exchange for cash. Most bribery in the real world is more subtle, as the Supreme Court once recognized.

Under Roberts’ predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the majority of justices – both left-leaning and right-leaning – saw efforts by political donors to set the agenda for political parties and elected officials as an improper corruption of the political process.

As the Rehnquist Court once concluded, corruption occurs “not only as quid pro quo agreements, but also as undue influence on an officeholder’s judgment, and the appearance of such influence.”

Money in Politics

The Roberts Court’s most notorious acquiescence to money in politics was Citizens United. Issued in 2010, the Citizens United decision decided that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend as much money as they want on political ads in any American election.

Dedraw Studio via Getty” data-src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/KsaaXPKJM4b.VqU4_aqc.g–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTcwNTtoPTU1Mg–/https://media.zenfs.com/en/the_conversation_us_articles_815/fd93d92c5bf710fa30a97d7a5a45da2a”>Dedraw Studio via Getty” src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/KsaaXPKJM4b.VqU4_aqc.g–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTcwNTtoPTU1Mg–/https://media.zenfs.com/en/the_conversation_us_articles_815/fd93d92c5bf710fa30a97d7a5a45da2a” class=”caas-img”>

Limiting corporate spending on political ads has “a chilling effect” on corporate free speech, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, and the government’s “anti-corruption interest” does not trump that concern.

The court reiterated this stance in 2014, when it threw out the federal limit of $123,000 in total donations per person to federal candidates over a two-year election cycle. In McCutcheon v. FEC, the court again insisted that campaign finance regulations must target only quid pro quo corruption – or “dollars for political favors.”

“Campaign finance restrictions that pursue other objectives impermissibly inject the Government” into deciding who wins an election, wrote Roberts in his majority opinion.

The chief justice was unswayed by arguments that strong campaign finance rules ensure rich and poor have an equal say in elections.

“No matter how desirable it may seem, it is not an acceptable governmental objective to ‘level the playing field,’” he wrote in McCutcheon.

Today, individual donors may sink unlimited funds into a federal election.

Redefining Fraud

The Roberts Supreme Court has substantially narrowed the definition of corruption in white-collar crime cases, too.

In 2016’s McDonnell v. United States, the justices declared that Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell did nothing wrong when he touted a dubious health product on behalf of a man who had paid for McDonnell’s wife’s clothes and his daughter’s wedding.

Four years later, the Supreme Court decided that the federal government could not prosecute a woman named Bridget Anne Kelly involved in the 2013 Bridgegate Scandal, when aides to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, including Kelly, intentionally caused a stifling traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge to punish one of Christie’s political opponents.

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

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

Joseph Percoco, an aide to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, had been convicted of fraud in 2018 for accepting $315,000 from two New York-based corporations to promote policies that favored their businesses. The Supreme Court threw out the conviction, in large part because the money exchanged hands while he was working on Cuomo’s 2014 election campaign – meaning he was not technically in government.

Mary Altaffer/AP” data-src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/4VhXtEKRFSWNDfNBu0wsxA–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY0MA–/https://media.zenfs.com/en/the_conversation_us_articles_815/b8f8d3a0678634798f7ef3f6cc110680″>Mary Altaffer/AP” src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/4VhXtEKRFSWNDfNBu0wsxA–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY0MA–/https://media.zenfs.com/en/the_conversation_us_articles_815/b8f8d3a0678634798f7ef3f6cc110680″ class=”caas-img”>

Yet, Percoco used a New York government phone approximately 837 times during that period, suggesting he wanted the outside world to perceive him as a government insider with access to political power.

Traditionally, private individuals found to have “dominated and controlled” government business, as Percoco was alleged to have done, could be guilty under federal law of what’s called “honest-services-fraud.” Since Percoco, that term now covers only bribery and kickbacks.

The Supreme Court’s lax stance on corruption endangers the integrity of American democracy, as I explain in my latest book, “Corporatocracy.” From McDonnell to Kelly to Percoco to Snyder, its rulings have eviscerated anti-corruption law. That sends a message to the corrupt: “You can be venal with few legal consequences.”

Corrupt people get a pass; good government takes another hit.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world.

It was written by: Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Stetson University .

Read more:

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy is affiliated with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law as a fellow and is a board member of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms
   • Indicator 16.5.1: Proportion of persons who had at least one contact with a public official and who paid a bribe to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by those public officials, during the previous 12 months

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage, and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality
   • Indicator 10.4.1: Labour share of GDP, comprising wages and social protection transfers

3. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic, and public life
   • Indicator 5.5.1: Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments and local governments

4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.3: Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated, and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries
   • Indicator 11.3.1: Ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The issues highlighted in the article are connected to the following SDGs:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 5: Gender Equality
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets can be identified:

• Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms
• Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage, and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality
• Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic, and public life
• Target 11.3: Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated, and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, there are indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:

• Indicator 16.5.1: Proportion of persons who had at least one contact with a public official and who paid a bribe to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by those public officials, during the previous 12 months
• Indicator 10.4.1: Labour share of GDP, comprising wages and social protection transfers
• Indicator 5.5.1: Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments and local governments
• Indicator 11.3.1: Ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate

These indicators can be used to measure progress towards reducing corruption and bribery, achieving greater equality, promoting women’s participation in decision-making, and enhancing sustainable urbanization.

Source: yahoo.com