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.
Hillary better keep an eye on this decision.
Exactly tin. With caveat blago was peddling specific. He wanted a quid pro qou for a position he could annoint without intervening votes. But michelle’s dresses are no different than maurrene’s shopping sprees. And mr mc never owed her even with a duty to support….shopping sprees. So they need to prove it. Could she really via marriage make that much influence? Then what of thomas? Now being dick whiped is a federal crime? Worse not being able to control your wife is a federal crime? It is in the dod.
The problem I have with it is the pick and choose prosecutions based on which way the political wind is blowing in the DOJ. Blago gets an exceedingly harsh sentence of 20 years, but Obama’s acceptance of a sweetheart land deal from a donor is ignored. And I further don’t get how McDonald’s wife was convicted. She was never elected to anything. “First Lady” is an honorary position and she surely could not have taken any “official acts” on behalf of the donor. I would just as soon see both McDonald’s and Blago’s convictions overturned, and Congress rewrite the laws to provide more certainty and less political influence by prosecutors who might be motivated to misuse the law to get a disfavored politician out of office and to clear the way for someone more to the establishment’s liking.
Afterall isnt the federal limit like $35. …? Only the chinese make fancy dresses that cheap….and “tailored” cant seriosly be called a ” rental” since tailoring itself costs more than forty bucks. Who gave michelle tbe dresses? If michelle doesn’t matter why does maureene?
I still don’t know….does michelle get to keep the dresses? Are federal prosecutors looking into it? …who has their thumbs on trade deals?
Essentially what we are saying is public officials can not covort with ppl with money. There has to be more….as ppl with money get them in position in the first instance. (Save trump)…so if cruz loses but is still a senator…he can’t hang out with carly? Carly can’t have him over for expensive wine salad and steak….? Because ppl in office have no freedom to associate like normal ppl. But holder had no problem saying we were cowards….and if we all just invited each other over for steak we’d be okay. Yet if whitey invited over…..he’d go over the “federal” limit for gifts and be prosecuted.
Then again as much as i loved scalia….whose plane was he on? How can ppl on that modest salary afford private hunting trips….repeatedly…..do we expect ppl on positions to have no friends? Or just no wealthy friends?
Even the gratuity laws require that something of value be given “for or because of an official act” in order to convict. See U.S. v. Sun Diamond, 528 U.S. 398 (1999). This is a 9-0 decision by SCOTUS that states “official act” does not mean “official position.”. If a gratuity charge requires an official act, surely the more serious charge of bribery should. Bribery actually requires a “quid pro quo.” People sometimes do things that are not wise, some might even say are immoral, but that doesn’t make them illegal. The Court must use the law as the basis for its findings. Otherwise we have no way of knowing if our actions are permissible and we are no longer a “government of laws.”
I followed this case from afar and I am conflicted. If we lock up pols for being slimy we will need to build many more prisons. Sounds like a true “shovel ready” project. I’m glad Blago is in prison. This guy, I can go either way. Good post, Cara.
Politics and corruption: and together, no less? I’m shocked. Positively shocked, I tell you! Almost as shocked, in fact, as the character played by Claude Rains in this scene from Casablanca:
It’s no excuse that most politicians do the same thing on different levels. It’s how most political systems work. Candidates do what they have to do to get elected and stay in office. What other system is preferable? For only the super wealthy to run for office? For taxpayers to pay for the political campaigns of everybody who wants to run? For taxpayers to pay for everybody who gets a certain level of petition signatures?
Maybe the first step is to point out that quid pro quot won’t be tolerated and then change to a political system that doesn’t require those behaviors.
Slimy? Yes. Unseemly? OMG, yes. But I don’t understand how you prosecute for slimy or unseemly conduct in office. Unless there’s an identifiable action the elected person took – in direct exchange for contributions – how do you criminalize the behavior?
Is this worse than a public employee union supporting a favored local government candidate and then having the now-elected official voting on a lucrative contract? Or a developer supporting a candidate and the now-elected official voting favorable zoning on the developer’s project?
Our system is rife with these kind of situations.
How foolish: “themes espoused by endearing national cynic Bernie Sanders and blustery Washington outsider Donald Trump.” I like Sanders ok, and certainly respect his honesty. But why is Sanders “endearing” but Trump “blustery”?
The truth is there are plenty of people who don’t find a Socialist “endearing”, or don’t find Sanders “endearing” for a variety of other reasons. There are also plenty of people who find Trump a refreshing straight talker, not “blustery”. The people who nod at the endearing vs blustering comments are predisposed to the conclusion based upon their being amongst the establishment elite of either political party.
The domination of alleged national thought by a self-appointed elite is very much a part of corruption in modern America. People from both political parties can elected to office and after some time in DC no longer have any cultural connection with their home or constituencies. Don’t think do? Did the Clintons even consider returning to Arkansas? How about Tom Daschle. Where does he now live? And the Republican (Livingston) who was Speaker for a day? He stayed in DC, he did not return to La. They all did it for the money.
If the establishment elites would climb off their moral and cultural high horse and walk a mile in the shoes of average middle class people they might understand why DC is regarded by most of the geographical US (and half the people) as perverse, corrupt, and not in touch with the average person. The level of offensive language and ideas directed at anyone disagreeing with NY Times’ style fashionable liberalism is startling. Startling and incredibly intolerant.
Sorry, but “access” can never be enough. The only reason to make these imaginary brain-scans of officials’ decisions is the prosecutorial agenda to sink the target. Without the necessary “quo”, there’s no restraints at all, especially since indictments are cheap and the payoff is so certain.
Corruption can work both ways. Yet time after time we see superstar Fed prosecutors getting overturned by the Courts for overreaching, but THEY never lose their jobs. All elected officials become political targets, and the rewards for claiming their scalps – without any concern for the cost to the taxpayers – will always be there.
We’ve had a couple hundred years plus of quid pro quo, and let’s keep it that way.
You okay fudd? Its saturaday have fun.
(music)
Just got in from Ill in ois.
Locked the front door oh boy!
And what of mrs maurene? She had no authority to give pro quo. … Nor did mcdonnels have a duty to pay for their kids golf or weddings. Yet the kids weren’t indicted for directly reciving the “gifts”…but the mrs was? What if all the gifts were to the unelected wife? Like fancy expensive dresses.
It’s my understanding that the Governor has argued that there is a Constituional right to engage in “pay to play”. It’s all part of “free speech”! It’s also my understanding that a majority of SCOTUS seem to be buying it! Good grief. Up is down. Hot is cold. And corruption and bribery are speech. What a great country! Welcome to the bazzar.
You ask, “where’s the pro?”
Is this, “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”, not it? Would McDonnell have done this to anyone just walking in without the “gifts”?
Sure hope the Supremes send the message.
“endearing national cynic Bernie Sanders”, cynic? really? From here, he isn’t cynical when he speaks the truth of the problem and suggests solutions for so many of us who can’t be heard.