this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
1238 points (98.8% liked)

News

23371 readers
2966 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 242 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This is quid pro quo being ruled as NOT bribery because it comes to the person on the backside of the favor. This is almost certainly to do with the majority of the court recently being outed about the amount of high value ~~bribes~~ gifts/vacations they are getting from "friends".

[–] [email protected] 116 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

"We realized that people now knew the things we constantly do that are wrong, so we made them not wrong anymore."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maggoty 20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This is almost certainly to do with the majority of the court recently being outed about the amount of high value bribes gifts/vacations they are getting from “friends”.

Nah, this is a long running theme. In chronological order-

Sun Diamond Growers - The government must prove the bribe is actually connected to the act.

Skilling - Corruption charges require a second party to give you a bribe or kickback, self dealing is fine.

Citizens United - Money is political speech, and you can spend as much as you want on an election.

McDonnell - Acting as a pay to play gatekeeper is fine. Even if the government connects the bribe to the act.

Ted Cruz - Politicians can keep unspent campaign funds as long as they maintain the fiction of having lent the campaign money.

Snyder - Kickbacks aren't actionable. <- We are here.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear 169 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Holy fuck! As if Citizens United wasn't bad enough. Our government is fully for sale now.

[–] NegativeInf 54 points 4 months ago (5 children)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] NegativeInf 27 points 4 months ago
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 136 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

So that means that I can engage in a a little tax evasion, as a treat, right?

On a serious note, from the article:

the law makes it a very serious crime, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for a federal official to accept a bribe

Can we start actually enforcing this please?

[–] [email protected] 50 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Define bribe and you’ll start to see where enforcing this becomes a problem. Especially with legalized corruption in the form of lobbying and ‘gifts’.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well, federal officials are already forbidden from accepting gifts/anything valued more than $25 in one instance, and no more than $100 a year from any one group or person. Enforcing that seems like a good place to start.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] OldChicoAle 98 points 4 months ago (2 children)

So is the difference "I'll give you money to do this thing" versus "I'll give you money if you do this thing"?

They both sound like bribes to me. Money, goods, or services are just handed over at different times.

I fucking hate these people. No shame. No morals. No humanity.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My interpretation of the article is that it's a question of timing. If you offer me money in order to hook you up, that's a bribe. But if I hook you up and later you give me money in thanks, that's not a bribe.

Obviously both of them are corrupt. But apparently this law can only target the former.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No see the first one is a bribe, the second one is a job. I'm paying you for your time! /s

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That was actually the argument made by the official in question. Called it a "consulting fee".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cybersandwich 87 points 4 months ago (5 children)

The way I read all of this and th decision is that they are saying that this law specifically only applies to bribery. They define it as a quid quo pro in advance of an act.

In this particular case, you can't charge the guy with bribery because it doesn't meet the definition.

That doesn't mean a "tip after the fact" isn't corrupt. That doesn't mean that's not in violation of some other law. It's saying that you can't apply this law to this case. This court is threading a fucking needle in an attempt to make this a state issue and say the Fed law can't apply.

Justice Jackson's dissent is amazing though:

Snyder's absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today's Court could love."

The Court's reasoning elevates nonexistent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute and is a quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog," Jackson added.

Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions. Greed makes governments—at every level—less responsive, less efficient, and less trustworthy from the perspective of the communities they serve,"

[–] Maggoty 19 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

SCOTUS has routinely bent over backwards to protect politicians from corruption and bribery charges though so the message is clear. You cannot charge a politician with bribery except in extreme circumstances. Like them being a democrat.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 86 points 4 months ago (2 children)

typically payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation

Am I taking crazy pills or is this asshole just literally saying here that it's okay to be corrupt?

[–] [email protected] 53 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Don't worry, it's only okay if the payment is made after the act is carried out. Everyone knows that corruption follows a strict order of operations, which if broken, means it's not corruption anymore!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 77 points 4 months ago (2 children)

bro i thought this was an onion post for a second what the fuck just happened

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pyre 50 points 4 months ago (2 children)

i love how the standard went from "the appearance of impropriety" to "you know what, just leave the money on the counter".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] IzzyScissor 42 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Haha, what a silly Onion article!

:checks URL:

Oh. Oh no.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ChillPenguin 42 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Bro.... Fuck this country.

[–] ssladam 22 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Saw the title, figured it couldn't be that bad. Read the article. It is that bad.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sanctus 41 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Its just out in the open. Corruption on full blast.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maggoty 37 points 4 months ago

I didn't think they could weaken it any further, you already had to get caught on tape exchanging money, laughing maniacally, and saying, "This is a bribe for X action."

Now you can do that, as long as it happens after the politician delivers. That's a kickback. It's the fucking definition of a kickback. They gave someone a contract and the contractor then gave the contract giver a large sum of money.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If they ever flip back to a Democrat majority, it's going to take decades to undo all the damage this court has done (and they'll still have the incentive to not undo stuff like this).

[–] anon_8675309 23 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Longer than that. Democrats are pretty centrist these days, so some of this will linger on for long long time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Snapz 35 points 4 months ago (2 children)

If you write "NOT BRIBE" on the cheek, it obviously CANNOT be a bribe.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 4 months ago

seems like a good thread to plug https://represent.us

they describe themselves as

RepresentUs is America’s leading nonpartisan anti-corruption organization fighting to fix our broken and ineffective government. We unite people across the political spectrum to pass laws that hold corrupt politicians accountable, defeat special interests, and force the government to meet the needs of the American people.

here's their policy platform https://represent.us/policy-platform/

they claim to have played a part in over 185 pieces of legislation (mostly at the state level) that contributed to their core platform https://represent.us/our-wins/

here are their ongoing campaigns presented state by state https://represent.us/2024-campaigns/

nobody and no organization are perfect but I feel like most people can find something to agree on here

[–] [email protected] 35 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

Politicians can legally be bribed after the fact now. Phew, what a relief.

I guess step two is to decide exactly how many hours a bribe needs to be given, before doing someone a favour, for it to just be considered a gift.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MeatPilot 34 points 4 months ago

Next up "donor" patches for clothing, donor branded shoes, and donor outfits. Have our state officials look like NASCAR.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yet another thing that tens of millions of people across the country would instantly lose their job for, made even MORE ok for the people who can cause the most damage by doing it. Every corporate conflict of interest training I’ve taken at current companies makes it abundantly clear that even the APPEARANCE of a POTENTIAL conflict needs to be disclosed and handled appropriately. Never mind there being literal, in writing, cash money kickbacks.

When it comes to having lower standards for state officials given special powers than we do for random schmucks, at least we’re consistent. From the lowest local cop to the highest federal politicians, why do we not only refuse to set standards but also remove ethical expectations?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 months ago (2 children)

SCOTUS has officially entered the sewage system courtesy of the GOP and Trump.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MehBlah 28 points 4 months ago

These people are all trash. All of them. Not a single decent MAGA in existence.

[–] arin 27 points 4 months ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 4 months ago (12 children)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago

[OLIGARCHY INTENSIFIES]

[–] NRay7882 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)

When can we start gifting them with bonfires as thanks for this change in law?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] exanime 20 points 4 months ago (13 children)

And with this final blow... the entire government of the USA is up for sale!

[–] Maggoty 16 points 4 months ago

It proves that it already was and has been. Citizens United tipped their hand that anyone with money (regardless of citizenship) is welcome to play.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] workerONE 19 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's not a bribe it's a gift! But it sounds like they need to rewrite the law. Politicians shouldn't be accepting gratuities, gifts, or bribes.

[–] Happywop 17 points 4 months ago (5 children)

I think SCOTUS isn't relevant anymore. If i were a state governor I would flat out refuse to abide by or use a guidance anything coming from this "court".

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago

The Supreme Court members who outed themselves as pro-corruption need to be given the 'Vote of No Confidence" treatment. Not just Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas, also remove the ones who quietly voted for post action bribes to be legal.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Gee, I wonder why Justice Thomas might be friendly towards the accused in a public corruption case. Maybe Harlan Crow encouraged him.

[–] Snapz 14 points 4 months ago (5 children)

"Encouraged him" before or after?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (4 children)

....Am I allowed to pass on to a better place now?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Openly corrupt assholes rule being openly corrupt very legal and very cool.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

load more comments
view more: next ›