Gratuities

[Marvin the Martian]

So the Supreme Court has struck down a Portage, IN bribery conviction of the mayor. The defendant's team had argued he received a gratuity, not a bribe. That seems an incredibly fine hair to split. How on earth could anyone know the difference between a gratuity and a bribe? Is anything paid after the fact now legal?

Jackson slams Kavanaugh for 'tail wagging the dog' ruling for mayor taking $13,000 'gratuity'

The Supreme Court ruled "gratuities" differ from "bribes"— and that federal law does not prohibit an Indiana mayor from receiving a hefty payment from a trash truck company as a potential kickback.

lawandcrime.com

 

[outside shooter]

Politicians should carry around one of those ipads to collect gratuities for every handshake and deal

Adjust the software to show a dollar amount rather than a percentage

 

[UncleMark]

I kinda sorta get Gorsuch's point, but regardless, with the Court nowadays it's always about the money. Greed is good.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I kinda sorta get Gorsuch's point, but regardless, with the Court nowadays it's always about the money. Greed is good.

I hope people stop complaining about the elite since we are legalizing bribery.

 

[3ZSDAD]

I hope people stop complaining about the elite since we are legalizing bribery.

It is just called a tip now not a bribe. Bob Menendez just received gold bars as tips.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Is anything paid after the fact now legal?

No.

we are legalizing bribery.

No.

The state can define this activity as a crime.

The issue is construing the federal statute. If Kavanaugh made any mistake, his mistake was he wrote too much. That’s an occupational hazard of Supreme Court justices.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No.


No.

The state can define this activity as a crime.

The issue is construing the federal statute. If Kavanaugh made any mistake, his mistake was he wrote too much. That’s an occupational hazard of Supreme Court justices.

I don't know what facets of Indiana's law he failed to meet. Reading a couple stories, none of it makes sense. The company said he was paid for shepherding the contract through. He was mayor, it isn't his job to shepherd one company's contract. But Indiana did nothing.

 

[UncleMark]

I don't know what facets of Indiana's law he failed to meet. Reading a couple stories, none of it makes sense. The company said he was paid for shepherding the contract through. He was mayor, it isn't his job to shepherd one company's contract. But Indiana did nothing.

He's a Republican, right?

 

[DANC]

I kinda sorta get Gorsuch's point, but regardless, with the Court nowadays it's always about the money. Greed is good.

This is good news for Joe. Any interest free loans the Bidens got from China that didn't have to be paid back are now just considered gratuities.

 

[Univee2]

This is good news for Joe. Any interest free loans the Bidens got from China that didn't have to be paid back are now just considered gratuities.

And Trump won’t tax them . . .

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don't know what facets of Indiana's law he failed to meet. Reading a couple stories, none of it makes sense. The company said he was paid for shepherding the contract through. He was mayor, it isn't his job to shepherd one company's contract. But Indiana did nothing.

Indiana may not have a law that covers this.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

So the Supreme Court has struck down a Portage, IN bribery conviction of the mayor. The defendant's team had argued he received a gratuity, not a bribe. That seems an incredibly fine hair to split. How on earth could anyone know the difference between a gratuity and a bribe? Is anything paid after the fact now legal?

Jackson slams Kavanaugh for 'tail wagging the dog' ruling for mayor taking $13,000 'gratuity'

The Supreme Court ruled "gratuities" differ from "bribes"— and that federal law does not prohibit an Indiana mayor from receiving a hefty payment from a trash truck company as a potential kickback.

lawandcrime.com

DISCLAIMER: NOT AN ATTORNEY

thank god for that!

I'll put my thoughts this way:

• Moral perspective - this is utter bullshit. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to accept any gifts, gratuities, bribes, etc., etc. Let's up the punishment to chopping off a limb!

• SCOTUS perspective - it sounds like the way Kavanaugh and the majority view this, it lacked Federal consistency and if you bought the gratuity argument (why did Congress ever pass two separate acts in the first place instead of just calling everything a bribe?), I guess from a legal standpoint, you can see why the ruling went that direction. Moreover, it appears there is conflict between state and local and Federal laws and if this employee is not a Federal employee, but rather a state or local one, shouldn't he be subject to those requirements vs. Federal ones?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

DISCLAIMER: NOT AN ATTORNEY

thank god for that!

I'll put my thoughts this way:

• Moral perspective - this is utter bullshit. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to accept any gifts, gratuities, bribes, etc., etc. Let's up the punishment to chopping off a limb!

• SCOTUS perspective - it sounds like the way Kavanaugh and the majority view this, it lacked Federal consistency and if you bought the gratuity argument (why did Congress ever pass two separate acts in the first place instead of just calling everything a bribe?), I guess from a legal standpoint, you can see why the ruling went that direction. Moreover, it appears there is conflict between state and local and Federal laws and if this employee is not a Federal employee, but rather a state or local one, shouldn't he be subject to those requirements vs. Federal ones?

I completely agree with your moral perspective.

I get the second part, but I wonder if there is a solution to, for lack of a better term, the old boys network. I don't think there is any doubt politicians would love to leave loopholes available for themselves. So Indiana might well allow "gratuity", full stop. Not because of a moral perspective but because everyone voting on the issue wants themselves to be allowed to accept gratuity. So in that regard, what is wrong with a federal standard? I don't know that states have a right to become graft-laden failed states.

And of course, the 500-pound gorilla in the room is that the Supreme Court doesn't have a vested interest in cracking down on "gratuity". And that isn't just a shot at Thomas, other members have accepted some very nice gifts. Ginsberg and Bryer both took gifts that I do not believe they should have. There may well be a SC incentive to normalize gift-giving.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

DISCLAIMER: NOT AN ATTORNEY

thank god for that!

I'll put my thoughts this way:

• Moral perspective - this is utter bullshit. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to accept any gifts, gratuities, bribes, etc., etc. Let's up the punishment to chopping off a limb!

• SCOTUS perspective - it sounds like the way Kavanaugh and the majority view this, it lacked Federal consistency and if you bought the gratuity argument (why did Congress ever pass two separate acts in the first place instead of just calling everything a bribe?), I guess from a legal standpoint, you can see why the ruling went that direction. Moreover, it appears there is conflict between state and local and Federal laws and if this employee is not a Federal employee, but rather a state or local one, shouldn't he be subject to those requirements vs. Federal ones?

You would like this part of the Colorado Constitution.

https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/info_center/laws/COConstitution/ArticleXXIX.html

This is so onerous that the kid of a public official couldn’t receive a scholarship. The ethics commission fixed that by agreeing to violate the rule.

 

[DANC]

I completely agree with your moral perspective.

I get the second part, but I wonder if there is a solution to, for lack of a better term, the old boys network. I don't think there is any doubt politicians would love to leave loopholes available for themselves. So Indiana might well allow "gratuity", full stop. Not because of a moral perspective but because everyone voting on the issue wants themselves to be allowed to accept gratuity. So in that regard, what is wrong with a federal standard? I don't know that states have a right to become graft-laden failed states.

And of course, the 500-pound gorilla in the room is that the Supreme Court doesn't have a vested interest in cracking down on "gratuity". And that isn't just a shot at Thomas, other members have accepted some very nice gifts. Ginsberg and Bryer both took gifts that I do not believe they should have. There may well be a SC incentive to normalize gift-giving.

After sleeping on this, I think the ruling is still ridiculous, but is it any different than giving money to a political campaign?

When people give big money to PACs, aren't they expecting to get something in return?

But, I repeat - I think cash payments are totally illegal, but I also don't see much difference between that and significant campaign contributions.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

After sleeping on this, I think the ruling is still ridiculous, but is it any different than giving money to a political campaign?

When people give big money to PACs, aren't they expecting to get something in return?

But, I repeat - I think cash payments are totally illegal, but I also don't see much difference between that and significant campaign contributions.

Very good point. At state level, the line might be even thinner. If I am allowed to pocket excess contributions to Marvin for Mayor, a campaign gift is a personal gift. If I recall, that is now restricted federally.

Part of this is the failure of a two party system. If the Democrat is dishonest, I don't have a good alternative if I really object to the Republican. Same for you in reverse. If we had 4 parties, I would have an option of saying politically I would vote for A but they are a sleazeball, so B is a reasonable alternative.

Similarly, I have said I am not voting for president, at least not D or R. That is easy in Indiana. If I were in Wisconsin I would find that decision much more difficult.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

After sleeping on this, I think the ruling is still ridiculous, but is it any different than giving money to a political campaign?

When people give big money to PACs, aren't they expecting to get something in return?

But, I repeat - I think cash payments are totally illegal, but I also don't see much difference between that and significant campaign contributions.

There is nothing ridiculous about this ruling. No matter how unsavory this payment is, we must deal with it in terms of existing law. If this payment should be prosecuted, then pass the laws to make it illegal. If we can’t follow the law, we got no guardrails.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

If this payment should be prosecuted, then pass the laws to make it illegal. If we can’t follow the law, we got no guardrails.

Wasn't there a law? Granted federal, but it was in fact a law.

 

[DANC]

Very good point. At state level, the line might be even thinner. If I am allowed to pocket excess contributions to Marvin for Mayor, a campaign gift is a personal gift. If I recall, that is now restricted federally.

Part of this is the failure of a two party system. If the Democrat is dishonest, I don't have a good alternative if I really object to the Republican. Same for you in reverse. If we had 4 parties, I would have an option of saying politically I would vote for A but they are a sleazeball, so B is a reasonable alternative.

Similarly, I have said I am not voting for president, at least not D or R. That is easy in Indiana. If I were in Wisconsin I would find that decision much more difficult.

I think there is a solution to this and it's a hard cap on campaign donations.

I don't know how that's done without an Amendment to the Constitution, though, because of that pesky free speech thing.

 

[DANC]

There is nothing ridiculous about this ruling. No matter how unsavory this payment is, we must deal with it in terms of existing law. If this payment should be prosecuted, then pass the laws to make it illegal. If we can’t follow the law, we got no guardrails.

It's ridiculous because it's obviously a pay for play scheme.

If you accept this ruling, then please explain the difference between a gratuity and a bribe, which I presume is illegal even under Federal law.

 

[tooold4]

This seems to be a good spot for this tidbit.