Political corruption on the docket for the last case of the SCOTUS term

By Cara L. Gallagher, weekend contributor

Oral arguments for the last case of the Supreme Court’s term were this week. The case,  McDonnell v. U.S., was about ethics and potential corruption between a donor and the former governor of Virginia. The timeliness of this case is not lost on this citizen of Illinois, where we should probably consider putting links to contribute to our candidates’ legal defense funds on our ballots. That’d be funny if their chances of going to jail for ethics violations or corruption weren’t actually greater than fifty percent. Four out of the last seven governors have been imprisoned. But at least our criminal governors make it easy on the courts! Dear Children’s Memorial Hospital, I won’t release your $8 million of state funding until you give me a $50,000 campaign contribution. Sincerely, Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

But what would it mean if for “the first time in our history that a public official has been convicted of corruption despite never agreeing to put a thumb on the scales of any government decision.” Do we have to wait for them to put a thumb on the scale in order for it to be punishable corruption? Today’s case shines a spotlight on former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell and could serve as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to send a bold warning to elected officials everywhere that quid pro quo corruption need not be as heavy handed as a thumb on a scale.

The Court will be answering two legal questions: First, whether or not McDonnell violated the federal bribery statute and the Hobbs Act by accepting gifts, personal loans, and campaign contributions from donor Jonnie Williams of Virginia-based Star Scientific Inc. in exchange for taking “official action.” Williams needed published academic research in order to get FDA approval of his dietary supplement Anatabloc. The government, represented by Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben for his 100th oral argument in the SCOTUS, McDonnell’s acceptance of gifts from Williams and subsequent arrangement of meetings with institutions like Virginia medical schools and universities, state agents, and a reception for healthcare leaders hosted by McDonnell at the Governor’s mansion, constitute abuses of official action.

The second question is whether or not the prosecution in the lower court violated McDonnell’s Sixth Amendment rights during voir dire by neglecting to ask potential jurors whether or not their knowledge of the publicity surrounding the alleged scandals shaped their opinion of McDonnell’s innocence.

You don’t have to be from a state rife with corruption like Illinois to care about this case. At a time of significant political distrust and skepticism of the status quo, themes espoused by endearing national cynic Bernie Sanders and blustery Washington outsider Donald Trump, McDonnell’s case is relevant and well-timed. It may serve as an ideal opportunity if the U.S. can get five Justices to write an opinion that demands an end to such corruption, the consequences of which inhibit voter trust, voter efficacy, and civic engagement. This may be optimal for the Justices given the relatively low stakes consequence for McDonnell, who has held off serving two years in prison until his case appeared before the Court.

The Justices will ultimately decide whether or not McDonnell violated a federal statute, but curiosity about the relationship between donors and politicians is at the core of this case and what those feeling the Bern and wanting to “make America great again” care about. This case is about access, not just tit-for-tat favors. Even if Sanders and/or Trump make you cringe, they’re both crushing it in one area: their reluctance to take money from interest groups and big donors. This bold move doesn’t just engender a credibility that is working with voters, it also liberates their campaigns from the entanglements of donors, eliminating their chances of ending up in a situation like Robert McDonnell. Pay-to-play political scheming is one of the core beliefs driving voters to support populist candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

Robert McDonnell hadn’t officially met Jonnie Williams prior to his election, but McDonnell knew him well enough to use Williams’ personal airplane during his campaign. Shortly after, Williams paid McDonnell’s debt with a $50,000 loan and gave the family a check to cover McDonnell’s daughter’s wedding caterer dinners. He also paid for shopping sprees at Oscar de la Renta and Louis Vuitton in New York City, golf trips, new golf clubs and shoes, vacations, and a Rolex. To top it off, Williams provided use of his Ferrari and contributed $100,000 to McDonnell’s campaign and PAC.

So what did Williams get out of this? According to McDonnell, “routine political courtesies: arranging meetings, asking questions, and attending events.” In short, nothing outside the legal and ethical boundary lines. “Neither Williams nor Star received ‘a dime of state money’ or any other state benefit.”

Historically, courts are inclined to punish quid pro quo corruption, or “this for that” brokering, where a transfer of goods is contingent on another transfer and involves officials using the privileges they have as a result of their political position. Williams’ showered hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and benefits on McDonnell and his family – there’s the “quid,” but where’s the “quo?” As no explicit evidence exists along the lines of “Dear Jonnie, thanks for the vacation! Here’s that study you wanted from UVA” the challenge of a standard defined as rigidly as quid pro quo has been interpreted makes prosecution very difficult.

Are we to believe Williams’ gifts were acts of pure generosity in which nothing was expected in return? Is anything ever really free? Perhaps in unconditional relationships like with family members or very old friends, but between a governor and a donor?

McDonnell and Williams aren’t former college roommates, relatives, or guys whose wives grew up together. The genesis of their relationship is so rooted in politics, had one not been running for governor at the time, they might never have associated with one another. Given this lopsided dynamic, and the absence of any relationship or history prior to McDonnell’s inauguration, why else would Williams continue to grant McDonnell’s requests if he wasn’t actively trying to gain special access? There couldn’t be a more conditional relationship than the one a newly elected governor has with a donor who let the candidate use his plane, contributed to his campaign, and gave fancy gifts. Why is it the standard has to rise to the level of a smoking gun email, text message, or proof that the generosity was rewarded in the form of request granted? I can request the same seemingly “routine political courtesies” like meetings with my governor, questions of my mayor, or entry to events, but there is absolutely no way I’m going to get them without the kind of access Williams bought and McDonnell enabled. Such a lavish showering of gifts to most appears awkward, tawdry, and should inspire a healthy dose of skepticism.

The Court might very well split 4-4 on this case. But if the Justices don’t, they may consider affirming the lower court’s decision sending McDonnell to jail, and use the opinion as an opportunity to remind us that anti-corruption laws aren’t there to merely punish quid pro quo corruption but to help preserve this thing called trust, and it’s “effing golden.” A decision is expected in June.

Follow Cara Gallagher on Twitter @SupremeBystandr

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

32 thoughts on “Political corruption on the docket for the last case of the SCOTUS term

  1. You have the right to speak!
    But you need a podium.
    A podium costs money.
    You need money for a podium.
    Otherwise the public will not hear a peep.
    Or a squeek.

    Give me my money!
    I’ll hold out my can.
    Pay for the preacher.
    Pay for this man!

  2. I’ll take care of grandpa.
    I’ll take care of ma.
    My first digs were governor.
    Of ol Ark an Saw.

    Then I went bigger.
    And ran on a skate.
    To take on the White House.
    And protect all states.

    Just give us the money.
    We’ll need in the Fall.
    Put smiley and Hillary.
    Back up on the Wall.

  3. From my perspective, this is a very simple issue if quid pro quo is the threshold of corruption of elected officials:

    From the point one makes application for ballot access, there can be no direct or indirect gifts, including personal loans, to the candidate from anyone, including from family members, other than campaign contributions which comply with federal election laws. This gift rule would be in effect until the candidate loses the election, or, if he or she wins, then until the term of office expires.

    I’m surprised Williams didn’t sell McDonnell a mansion at below FMV, as was the case with gung-ho fighter pilot turned gung-ho corrupt Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham.

    Thanks for sharing this, Cara, although I join with bettykath regarding “cynic Bernie.” A better choice of words might have been “revolutionary Bernie” or “self-described socialist Bernie” or “Democratic Party-faithful who’s dreaming if he think he can change the corrupted two-party Establishment Bernie.” Hey, it’s easier to just shrug one’s shoulders and say as Hillary did, “They just gave it to me.”

  4. Outlaw political advertisiing on television and the internet. That takes some of the cost out of campaigns. Let all prisoners vote. Same with mental health in patients right to vote. Illinois is not so bad as folks scream.

  5. McDonnell will walk and the same logic(sic) will be used pre-Hillary-in-the-dock – and afterwards if she isn’t
    beg your pardon by Clinton lover(sic) Obama.

    Senator Sanders describes his political beliefs as Democratic Socialist.

    “The key difference between socialism and democratic socialism is that democratic socialists don’t want the government to own the means of production and socialists do. They believe that certain general social goods like health care should be run by the government, but otherwise support capitalism.”

    • JR, thanks for the link. It stinks and sure gives an appearance of impropriety. I’d guess the two sales to Obama were within the range of FMV or we’d have heard more about this. On the other hand, . . .

      Thanks again.

  6. Fudd…you make life interesting. “Character” used to matter. In my book it still does. Keep up your character…it is you… your town and family will love you for it. God bless you. People might not post back but “get” what you say. Just remember ppl who get it are few and far between. I get you because my dad didnt move us to the suburb. I literally spent my youth not on the brady bunch….whoever they are …but in the homes of korean and ww2 vets for “coffee”. Character matters sir. And no robot knows what you really say…..and few recognize it. But i do. Do feel good about that fudd. Never think the next generation abandoned you.

  7. You say current law doesn’t make any of what went down illegal but you’re OK with the SCOTUS making new law from the bench. How about sending it back to the state legislature to close the ambiguity loophole?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s