Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: Question of the day: 2023 Golden Horseshoe Awards
Posted in:
* As we’ve already discussed, the convicted ComEd Four defendants were able to delay their January sentencing date because of an Indiana corruption case which has made it to the US Supreme Court. Former Speaker Michael Madigan and his co-defendant Mike McClain are expected to ask to have their trials delayed for the same reason…
The developments come in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to take up a corruption case out of Northwest Indiana, in which questions revolve around a law at play in the ComEd and Madigan cases.
* The case in question is Snyder v. United States. From the SCOTUS Blog…
Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.
* From the New Republic…
The two sides in the case agree on some basic facts. James Snyder, the defendant, was elected to be the mayor of Portage, Indiana, in 2012. Portage is home to just under 38,000 people. While serving as mayor, he oversaw the bidding process for a contract to purchase new waste-management trucks for the town. Those contracts, which were worth more than $1.1 million, went to a local trucking company. In January 2014, one month after the final round of contracts was signed, the company paid Snyder $13,000 for “insurance and technology consulting.” […]
“Consistent with Indiana law, which does not forbid small-town mayors from pursuing other employment, Mayor Snyder began offering consulting services. [defense lawyers wrote]” The truck company in question simply took advantage of them.
The Justice Department saw things differently. The bidding process, from their description, had “significant irregularities.” It was overseen by one of Snyder’s personal friends who had no prior experience in such matters. The local truck company, Great Lakes Peterbilt, was also in financial trouble and needed the contracts to stay afloat. Bidding requirements were drawn up so that only the company could meet them: Only Peterbilt chassis were allowed, the city’s clerk-treasurer was cut out of the process, and alternative candidates were turned down for equipment demonstrations. Snyder communicated extensively with the Buha brothers, who owned the truck company, but not with any other candidates.
After it concluded, Snyder suddenly received a $13,000 check for consulting fees. “Neither [Snyder] nor the Buhas produced any documentation relating to any consulting agreement or services performed by [Snyder] for GLPB, and Snyder did not include the $13,000 payment on a form to disclose compensation he received from parties doing business with the city,” the government told the justices. “And at the time GLPB’s controller issued the check, Robert Buha told the controller that ‘they were paying [Snyder] for his influence.’”
Federal prosecutors charged Snyder with multiple tax and corruption–related charges. Two of the charges came from a provision in federal anti-corruption law known as Section 666. … That provision makes it a crime for state, local, territorial, and tribal leaders to “corruptly” take money “intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with” government business. A jury found Snyder guilty and sentenced him to almost two years in prison.
Snyder, on appeal, sought to dismiss his conviction by arguing that Section 666 required prosecutors to prove quid pro quo corruption—in other words, that he explicitly took the $13,000 in exchange for official acts. Prosecutors had argued that the statute’s language allowed them to charge Snyder just for accepting the money as a “gratuity” as opposed to a bribe. They noted that Congress had previously amended the statute to add a guilty-mind requirement through the word “corruptly” to avoid including potentially legitimate business and personal transactions.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the prosecutors, joining the Second, Sixth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits in allowing gratuities to be prosecuted under Section 666. Not every federal appeals court that has considered the question agrees, however. The First and Fifth Circuits have instead held that gratuities do not fall under Section 666’s purview, instead reading the term “corruptly” to require some sort of outright quid pro quo. The Supreme Court is most likely to intervene in cases where the lower courts are sharply divided on how to interpret a federal law. […]
Snyder’s lawyers emphasized similar themes in the court’s previous anti-anti-corruption rulings. “Criminal laws must give ‘fair notice’ to avoid the risk of ‘arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,’” they told the justices, quoting from the McDonnell ruling. “Yet, as above, the breadth of conduct potentially meeting the government’s definition of a gratuity is sweeping. As this case illustrates, any time a public servant accepts private employment (think: every ex-state legislator turned lobbyist), federal prosecutors might recast those payments as gratuities for actions taken in office.”
You should really go read the whole thing. The Seventh Circuit is in Chicago, and that’s where the Illinois defendants’ appeals will be filed, so that’s a big reason why this is so important.
*** UPDATE *** As expected…
"Considering the monumental impact that the Snyder decision will have on this irrefutably complex case and the resulting prejudice to the defendants from denying a stay, the defendants respectfully request that the court stay the proceedings or reset the trial date to the fall."
— Jason Meisner (@jmetr22b) December 19, 2023
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 10:44 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: Question of the day: 2023 Golden Horseshoe Awards
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
First of all Section 666? Very interesting. And writing a proposal so that only one entity fits the requirements? I thought that was if not common certainly not unheard of.
Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 10:59 am
While the money wasn’t received until after the fact, since no work was actually done by Snyder, it seems pretty clear it was a payoff for rigging the contract, so I’m hoping the Supremes agree that Snyder’s conviction was neither arbitrary, or discriminatory, and that the “gratuity” was the result of his corrupt actions.
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 11:03 am
An explicit quid pro quo requirement would make it so easy to pay bribes with a nod and wink. Even this supreme court can’t be that blind.
Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 11:06 am
===Even this supreme court can’t be that blind.===
I agree with you about the explicit quid pro quo requirement, but I don’t think Clarence Thomas does.
I am not a lawyer, I’m just a cave man and federal statutes confuse and frighten me. I’ve always thought that public officials had a fiduciary duty to taxpayers and citizens to get the best deal for the public, not the best deal for themselves.
If the USSC determines that gratuities are A-OK, then katy bar the door because I and many others will get very creative trying to cash in on this newly legal cash cow.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 11:28 am
@47th Ward. You are right about cashing in. I never thought about that. Bit on the upside we will probably have a lot more candidates to choose from
Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 11:39 am
Not surprised that this activity occurs in NW Indiana. Political influence and nefarious activities go hand in hand with pollution that fills the sky and waterways.
BITD, the city attorney in East Chicago, In., was murdered after a fundraiser attended by 400 people. Of course, there were no witnesses.
The former sheriff of Lace County is serving a sentence in prison while the new sheriff has a pending criminal indictment.
A small-town mayor recently dipped into campaign funds to gamble at a local casino and failed to file income taxes.
It never ends.
Comment by Rudy’s teeth Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 11:47 am
Illinois conservatives to Supreme Court: Hey, can you please stop the assault weapons ban and do something about this blatant partisan gerrymandering?
SCOTUS: Best we can do is allow Michael Madigan and Ed Burke to walk free…
Comment by JB13 Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 12:03 pm
===If the USSC determines that gratuities are A-OK, then katy bar the door because I and many others will get very creative trying to cash in on this newly legal cash cow.
And everyone is complaining about the Tip Economy now…
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 12:04 pm
== writing a proposal so that only one entity fits the requirements? ==
Tailored specs are often the results of lobbyists and technical advisors making pitches. They are not unheard of.
And sometimes they are needed to ensure compatibility with existing equipment or systems.
The situation in question does seem more blatant than what usually occurs.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 12:23 pm
Snyder’s corruption seems pretty blatant to me, but then again, so did McDonell’s — and the Supreme Court unanimously tossed out his conviction.
There’s pretty clear evidence that the Supreme Court does not prioritize government ethics…from the McDonnell decision, to Justice Thomas’ collection of “gifts,” to Justice Sotomayor’s book selling habits. If they let virtually every pending corruption defendant in federal court walk (and I’m betting they do) Congress is going to be under pressure to tighten up the bribery laws. It would actually be a pretty good issue for them in an election year, but I won’t hold my breath.
Comment by Telly Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 12:46 pm
At this rate, we will all be turning in the Al Czervik character from ‘Caddyshack’.
“Hey, tiger, here. Keep it fair, Keep it fair, will you?”
Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 2:16 pm
It’s clear to me that the sentencing for the Com Ed Four may not happen to next Fall…..and then there will be appeals. Madigan’s Trial will more than likely get thrown out. Of course…..this is on the supposition that the SCOTUS rules that you must clearly show a Quid Pro Quo. Madigan always went to the edge….but this may be the best example that he didn’t go over the line. His Legacy will be fully restored if he’s Not convicted of any crimes. This will be very interesting.
Comment by Ryder Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 2:18 pm
Prediction?…they all walk.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 3:23 pm
Q. What’s between quid and quo?
A. complexity…and buffers.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 3:43 pm
Delay their sentencing for as long as you want. But revoke their bond and let them sit in the federal lock up and wait like every other common criminal.
Comment by DougChicago Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 5:21 pm
===let them sit in the federal lock up and wait like every other common criminal. ===
That’s not how the federal system works.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 19, 23 @ 8:20 pm