Are laws against corruption unconstitutional?

[Beerina]

Well, no. That's NOT what the court ruled. The court ruled that the prosecution's theory of the law in question was invalid, and the instructions to the jury wrong. The court explicitly left open the possibility of a retrial, which means that, contrary to that summary, they did NOT rule that the acts were not within the scope of anti-corruption law. Had they done so, then there could be no possibility of a retrial.

They have to prove he also tried to influence the other officials to take (favorable) action, and not just that he arranged meetings with them. The latter is just "politics as usual", donations for consideration and access.

 

[Lorentz]

Not at all.

I'm saying that public officials are also still private individuals, and that not every act taken by a public official is automatically an official act. Even acts for which they are compensated may still just be the acts of a private individual.

If the quid pro quo takes on extra value from being performed by a public official, then that's taking advantage of the office for personal gain, i.e. corruption.

In the case discussed, would he have been showered with lavish gifts as just a private citizen? I think that's obviously not the case, which means the accused was using his position in public office for private gain.

I'm somewhat familiar with corruption rules in my country; they go a bit further. Accepting any gift or service while in office for any reason is grounds for impeachment, even if they would have been fine to accept as a private citizen. It's a known and accepted small cost to taking public office; even the smallest appearance of corruption should be avoided.

 

[theprestige]

If the quid pro quo takes on extra value from being performed by a public official, then that's taking advantage of the office for personal gain, i.e. corruption.

In the case discussed, would he have been showered with lavish gifts as just a private citizen? I think that's obviously not the case, which means the accused was using his position in public office for private gain.

I'm somewhat familiar with corruption rules in my country; they go a bit further. Accepting any gift or service while in office for any reason is grounds for impeachment, even if they would have been fine to accept as a private citizen. It's a known and accepted small cost to taking public office; even the smallest appearance of corruption should be avoided.

Yes, yes. I'm extremely butthurt that a public official enriched himself with gifts given because he was a public official. Positively outraged. But did he actually act improperly in any official capacity? No? Then it turns out I'm not actually bothered at all by his personal good fortune.

 

[Lorentz]

Yes, yes. I'm extremely butthurt that a public official enriched himself with gifts given because he was a public official. Positively outraged. But did he actually act improperly in any official capacity? No? Then it turns out I'm not actually bothered at all by his personal good fortune.

Corruption lies not in whether or how he acted upon receiving bribes, it lies in the receiving. That's the point where any trust that he's acting impartially and in good faith goes out the window.

 

[theprestige]

Corruption lies not in whether or how he acted upon receiving bribes, it lies in the receiving. That's the point where any trust that he's acting impartially and in good faith goes out the window.

Calling it a bribe when you can show no corresponding improper act is begging the question. I'm all for regulations against gifts to public officials, exactly because of the loss of trust it engenders. But losing your trust is not the same thing as accepting a bribe, nor is it the same thing as actually abusing official authority.

This case specifically is quite interesting, since it seems the quid pro quo was all out in the open and well-known. He was essentially working a second job, facilitated by his government position, but not dependent on him abusing his government authority in any way. You're basically arguing that it should be illegal for a state governor to take a second job, if being governor makes it easier to do that job.

My position is that it should be legal, and if the citizens of the state don't like it, they should elect a different kind of governor at the first opportunity. Or else get their legislature to pass a constitutional law against governors having second jobs.

ETA: To be clear, corruption lies exactly in taking bribes. Bribery is a corrupt act. If it's not a bribe, it's not corruption to take it. Where, exactly, is the bribe in this story?

 

[Lorentz]

My position is that it should be legal

I strongly disagree. In my opinion there are two good reasons why this should be illegal.
1) It's often hard to find the quo for a given quid. It can be something as hard to detect as a private talk to some other politician, asking him to vote in a different direction, calling in a favour. To be able to call it corruption we shouldn't need to know the quo. The quid suffices.
2) It produces bad incentives for people to try to enter public office. Become governor, retire on all the freebies! If such gifts are legal, this mindset is bound to exist. It's more or less an advertisement for corruption.

, and if the citizens of the state don't like it, they should elect a different kind of governor at the first opportunity. Or else get their legislature to pass a constitutional law against governors having second jobs.

Citizens don't have much say in this system, when any candidate they can elect is going to be supportive of rules whereby they can enrich themselves. It's similar to the fallacy that CEOs earn such stellar salaries because the shareholders think they're worth it. The shareholders rarely have the ability to influence or rein in excessive remuneration.

ETA: To be clear, corruption lies exactly in taking bribes. Bribery is a corrupt act. If it's not a bribe, it's not corruption to take it. Where, exactly, is the bribe in this story?

The bribe lies in the receiving of rewards, based on his having a public position. The problem with corruption lies not so much in that actions are taken to benefit the briber, it lies in the perception that such jobs should have 'perks'. The existence of such perks attracts low lives rather than people motivated to work for the benefit of their voters. It encourages a mindset that such officials are special, maybe above the law, or should be able to arrange cushy jobs for their relatives. This is how corruption works in countries like Uganda or Ukraine. It's not that officials there are taking specific corrupt actions, it's that they want a slice of the pie for any action taken or avoided.