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.
“no proof of an illicit deal”
The money IS the proof of the illicit deal, they gave him money when there was no legal or reasonable reason to give him money.
“We wanted to just give away money” isn’t a legal reason for anyone who isn’t recording for a you tube channel at this point.
One of the clowns on this court is a corrupt fuckhead who has been accepting bribes from billionaires for years.
This was another case by the conservative law network where the facts were either made up, or so badly misrepresented that they might as well have been made up. This mayor basically walked into the company’s office and said, “I got you those contracts. Give me money if you want any more in the future.”
Ok, sounds like the Supreme Court is just sorta all-in on institutional corruption. Got it.
Why wouldn’t they be? Aren’t they the product of institutional corruption?
They’re a product of unrestrained Capitalism capturing its own government and accompanying regulators. This was the inevitable outcome of “turning the bull loose.”
Short term profit > the needs of the many and the long term habitability of this planet for all future humans.
Who cares about our species’ future? Bezos’ support mega yacht for his mega yacht needs a support support mega yacht to keep it company!
🔥🇺🇸🔥
I’d say we had a nice run, but considering genocide, slavery, highly selective voting rights, Jim Crow, Union Busting, supply side economics, foreign government toppling for domestic economic goals, warring to open up markets for resource exploitation, citizens united, etc… No we didn’t.
We weren’t even some benevolent saviors in World War II despite the constant crowing, we had our pacific fleet destroyed so we fought back. The war came to us, we were practicing eugenics prior to WWII.
Yup, we entered the European theater because the ppl we loaned all that money were getting their asses kicked and knew if they lost we’d never see a cent back.
And prior to us getting attacked, there were a metric ton of powerful Americans who sincerely dug the Nazi’s style, including Henry Ford, who manufactured war machines for both sides, and is still held up to children as a titan and pioneer of American entrepreneurship because he made a lot of money and facilitated more profit for other capitalists, all that matters here, so who cares what he supported ideologically amirite?
Let’s be fair: Henry Ford was an antisemite way before Hitler.
In 1918, Henry Ford purchased his hometown newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. A year and a half later, he began publishing a series of articles that claimed a vast Jewish conspiracy was infecting America. The series ran in the following 91 issues. Ford bound the articles into four volumes titled “The International Jew,” and distributed half a million copies to his vast network of dealerships and subscribers. The rhetoric was not unusual for its content, as much as its scope. As one of the most famous men in America, Henry Ford legitimized ideas that otherwise may have been given little authority.
While yes, what about rock and roll, or hip hop or the ability to criticize politicians you disagree with? That was all cool. Shit, having trouble coming up with more. I’d put the new deal in there too. That shit was gold and created a strong working class. Just sucks how dumb we’ve always been because of the racism and greed (can’t fund good schools for everyone or have public pools or whatever)
I’m sorry, but again, jim crow.
Our most revered eras of prosperity, except the 90s, were so prosperous on the backs of a massive, racially determined underclass supporting it and not benefitting from it with no other options. They never even had well funded schools worth the defunding that’s happened to the rest since then.
And once a lot of people died getting rid of that, the owners decided fuck all the peasants, leading into today’s more widespread economic despair.
Also rock and roll was derived from African American music of the times, and was just another thing white Americans stole from their racial underclass to benefit themselves.
I never said Jim Crow was cool or anything. lol
I consider Black Americans Americans so… America gets the credit
I don’t think we’re understanding each other here. Wasn’t really trying to argue. Sometimes, two things can be true. No?
We will thank you for inventing hip hop, but both the japanese and the british have better hip hop than your pop hop these days
I was referring moreso to the cultural impact. (Though from your later replies I think you’re just making a joke I’m not getting)
When I think of things I respect about the US and the positive impact its had, I tend to think of how most governments at the time (50s-70s and 70s-90s) seemed to be cracking down on personal free expression (granted that was happening in the US for nonwhite people) and yet Americans (specifically those in counter-culture movements) were able to resist and come out on top. Hell, I’d even throw in comic book creators as having made their mark on moving the needle towards free expression despite loud criticism from conservative mobs.
It’s very depressing, also for those of us in the imperial sphere of countries. Because we’re beholden to US foreign policy, and the worse the US gets, the more dangerous it is for us.
I mean, we (Australia) already we’re doing war crimes for the US in Afghanistan (look up David McBride, the Australian military lawyer), already buying $300 subs as some kind of tributary payment, already followed you into dozens of wars we had no business being a part of, I truly worry for what’s next under a more corrupt US regime.
Yikes.
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.
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.
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.
Illegitimate court. Not a single ruling from them should be upheld or paid attention to by any citizen. Over half of them have proven themselves to be corrupt BEYOND shame.
Unfortunately, despite the fact I agree with you this court is illegitimate, and would add our entire government is illegitimate due to the capitalist’s capture of it and legalization of their bribery of incoming officials, these illegitimate rulings will be enforced by our captured government at the point of a gun, and for this I blame the framers for failing to put any reasonable checks, including term limits, on the judicial branch.
