The U.S. Supreme Court rules state and local officials may take gifts and payments for steering contracts to grateful patrons.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to take gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had previously been awarded lucrative contracts or other government benefits thanks to the efforts of the official.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.

In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.

  • @Rottcodd
    44•3 days ago

    So as near as I can tell, the Supreme Court’s goal is to create some vague illusion that corruption is not to be tolerated by making it a crime if and only if people with a specific interest in a specific ruling or piece of legislation offer a substantial amount of money or something of equivalent value while clearly communicating their intent to buy the influence of an official and said official then accepts the bribe, clearly announces their intent to act according to the bribe-payer’s wishes solely because they’ve been paid to, then does so.

    And in literally ALL other cases, it somehow won’t count and will be entirely legal.

    • @postmateDumbass
      14•3 days ago

      They have already decided money is speech, so this is a 1st amendment ruling?

      Also an easy way to cover their asses for all the bribes they have taken.

      • @Rottcodd
        11•3 days ago

        Yes - it’s pretty much a given, cynically, that a corrupt court is going to rule that corruption is legal.

        As I often do, I wonder if this is going to be one of the things that future historians will point to as a notable event in the days leading up to the collapse of the US.