SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
bribery
Democrats, Progressives Call On Menendez to Resign After Bribery Conviction
"He must resign today or be immediately expelled," said one watchdog leader.
Jul 16, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez faced fresh pressure to resign on Tuesday after his federal corruption trial ended with a jury finding him guilty on all 16 counts for accepting bribes from three businessmen and acting as a foreign agent for the Egyptian government.
"In light of this guilty verdict, Sen. Menendez must now do what is right for his constituents, the Senate, and our country, and resign," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said of the New Jersey Democrat, who had pleaded not guilty.
Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said in a statement that the verdict "demonstrates that the senator broke the law, violated the trust of his constituents, and betrayed his oath of office. It also shows that in America, everyone—no matter how powerful—is accountable to our laws."
Murphy continued:
Sen. Menendez received a fair trial and due process of law as he was entitled to under our Constitution. I want to thank all the public servants who play crucial roles in our criminal justice system, including our law enforcement officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurors, and judges. Their hard work ensured that these brazen crimes were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and our nation is grateful for their service.
I reiterate my call for Sen. Menendez to resign immediately after being found guilty of endangering national security and the integrity of our criminal justice system. If he refuses to vacate his office, I call on the U.S. Senate to vote to expel him. In the event of a vacancy, I will exercise my duty to make a temporary appointment to ensure the people of New Jersey have the representation they deserve.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington president Noah Bookbinder, a former federal corruption prosecutor, similarly released a statement calling on the Senate to act if Menendez refuses to leave voluntarily.
"After years of ducking accountability for corruption, Sen. Bob Menendez has finally been convicted by a jury of his peers," he said. "There is no room in the Senate for a convicted felon, especially not one convicted of taking bribes. He must resign today or be immediately expelled."
Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said that "after a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers who heard all the facts of the case, Sen. Menendez has broken the trust of New Jersey voters. When we see our leaders sell their influence, we lose faith that democracy is worth participating and believing in."
"It is foundational to our representative democracy that our leaders in Washington put their own personal interests aside in favor of the public interest," she added. "Rather than serve the voters, Sen. Menendez sold them out for his own personal profit. He must resign."
Menendez was initially indicted in September for allegedly taking bribes in the form of "cash, gold, payments toward a home mortgage, compensation for a low-or-no-show job, a luxury vehicle, and other things of value." He swiftly stepped down as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but remained in the chamber, despite calls for his resignation as the charges mounted.
The verdict was delivered at a federal courthouse in New York City on Tuesday. The Associated Pressreported that "as the verdict was read in court, Menendez, 70, looked toward the jury at times as he appeared to mark a document in front of him. Afterward, he sat resting his chin against his closed hands, elbows on the table."
Menendez did not testify at the trial—the conclusion of which comes as he is running for another Senate term as an Independent against Democratic Congressman Andy Kim and Curtis Bashaw, a Republican real estate developer.
"I'm deeply disappointed by the jury's decision," Menendez told reporters outside the courthouse, adding that he plans to appeal. "I have never violated my public oath. I've never been anything but a patriot of my country and for my country."
The senator previously faced unrelated corruption charges in 2017, but that trial ended with a deadlocked jury. In this case, his wife, Nadine Menendez, was also charged. She has pleaded not guilty. Her trial was postponed so she could recover from breast cancer surgery.
This post has been updated with comment from Common Cause.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Bribery Has a Green Light' as Supreme Court Overturns Mayor's Conviction
"Snyder's absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today's court could love," liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent.
Jun 26, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with a former Indiana mayor convicted of accepting a bribe from a business shortly after it was awarded municipal contracts, a ruling that one dissenting justice called "absurd" and critics said weakens public corruption laws.
Ruling 6-3 along ideological lines in
Snyder v. United States, the justices overturned the bribery convictions of former Portage, Indiana Mayor James Snyder, a Republican who took $13,000 from a trucking company after helping it obtain more than $1 million in city contracts.
Snyder maintains that the payment was legal compensation for consulting work. His lawyers contended that prosecutors failed to prove any quid pro quo agreement prior to the awarding of contracts, and that the prosecution of public officials for gratuities given after the fact criminalizes legitimate gift-giving.
"State and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local officials may accept," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court's right-wing supermajority, adding that the anti-corruption law in question "does not supplement those state and local rules by subjecting 19 million state and local officials to up to 10 years in federal prison for accepting even commonplace gratuities. Rather, [it] leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials."
However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent joined by liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor that "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," Jackson continued. "Perhaps realizing this, Congress used 'expansive, unqualified language' in
18 USC §666 to criminalize graft involving state, local, and tribal entities, as well as other organizations receiving federal funds. Salinas v. United States... imposes federal criminal penalties on agents of those entities who 'corruptly' solicit, accept, or agree to accept payments 'intending to be influenced or rewarded'."
"Today's case involves one such person," Jackson noted. "He asks us to decide whether the language of §666 criminalizes both bribes and gratuities, or just bribes. And he says the answer matters because bribes require an upfront agreement to take official actions for payment, and he never agreed beforehand to be paid the $13,000 from the dealership."
"Snyder's absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today's court could love," she asserted. "Ignoring the plain text of §666—which, again, expressly targets officials who 'corruptly' solicit, accept, or agree to accept payments 'intending to be influenced or rewarded'—the court concludes that the statute does not criminalize gratuities at all."
"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.
Rolling Stone senior politics editor Andrew Perez, who covers money and its influence on politics and policy, noted:
The decision is hardly a surprise given the Supreme Court has consistently narrowed the definition of corruption under Chief Justice John Roberts—even before conservatives built a supermajority. Still, the Snyder case was exceptionally brazen and unusually ridiculous—and justices chose to hear this case amid an unprecedented controversy over reports that revelations they have routinely accepted and failed to disclose luxury gifts.
"It was a ridiculous performance and display from the justices, but it served a purpose," Perez added. "Now, delivering gratuities to politicians is legal; politicians can procure personal cash payments from companies after acting to their benefit."
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have been accused of inappropriately and possibly illegally accepting gifts or other perks from others including wealthy Republican donors with business before the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch has come under fire for failing to disclose a real estate sale to the head of a law firm subsequently involved in over 20 cases before the high court.
"With the Supreme Court's Snyder decision, it has made clear that bribery has a green light for elected officials—if it happens after the official act," Norman Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, said on social media. "A court with utter chutzpah for its own ethics misconduct is saying ethics don't matter in governing—big money can rule. What a disgrace."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Corrupt Supreme Court Could Make Political Bribery Even Easier
The plaintiff in Snyder v United States is claiming that when a public official accepts a “gift” from a person or corporation who has benefited from that public official’s actions, that should not be legally considered a bribe.
Mar 20, 2024
A democracy is run by and for the benefit of the demos, the people. An oligarchy is run by and for the oligoi, the “few,” aka the morbidly rich.
Thanks to a corrupt bloc of Republicans who’ve controlled the U.S. Supreme Court since the Nixon era, America is more than halfway through the transition from democracy to oligarchy.
But it’s not too late for We, The People to reclaim our government from the forces of neofascism and great wealth who’ve worked so hard since the Reagan Revolution to seize complete control of it.
Virtually all of America’s current crises track back to corrupt GOP appointees on the Supreme Court rewriting or outright cancelling over a century’s worth of good-government anti-corruption laws.
It’s going to require a two-step process: End the ability of the morbidly rich and giant corporations to legally bribe judges and politicians, and then use that reclaimed political power to require the rich to pay their fair share of taxes.
It sounds like a heavy lift, but it’s been done several times before in American history, most recently between 1932 and the Reagan Revolution 1980s, and each time produced a period of extraordinary prosperity for working class people while still helping the rich get rich as well.
Today, however, millions of Americans are working two or more jobs just to pay the rent, more than half of us (56%) can’t deal with a $1,000 emergency expense like a car breakdown or broken tooth, and the top 1% of Americans own more wealth than what’s left of the entire middle class.
The three wealthiest families in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people, and, since the days of the Reagan Revolution, the top 1% has gained $21 trillion in wealth while the bottom 50% of us have lost$900 billion in wealth.
And now comes the headline that America’s 614 billionaires, according to Forbes, have almost doubled their wealth (an 88% increase) just in the 3+ years since the pandemic started in 2020.
Almost all of this transformation of the American economy—and the gutting of the middle class—are the result of five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court ruling, in 1976, 1978, and 2010 that when rich people or corporations shower judges and politicians with money and other gifts in exchange for rulings and legislation (particularly tax breaks!), that’s not bribery but, instead, merely an exercise of “free speech.”
After five corrupt Republicans on the court legalized bribery in 1978, the Reagan administration (1981-1989) embraced it with gusto, trading what would eventually become tens of trillions of dollars in tax cuts in exchange for a few hundred million in campaign contributions and a few billion for the financing of a national network of think tanks, radio stations, publications, and right-wing television.
Several billionaires reached out to buy off Clarence Thomas, who was the 2010 deciding vote in the most egregious of these decisions, Citizens United. Open Secrets has documented over $2.8 billion in dark money spending and contributions reported to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) just in the years since then.
And two recent Supreme Court cases have allowed massive loopholes to FEC reporting so additional hundreds of millions to billions—nobody knows the amount because it’s unreported—are today pouring into political campaigns, third-party advertising, influence campaigns, social media, and coffers.
It’s a safe bet that not one penny of those dark money billions came from average people like you and me.
This growing reality of oligarchy is why so many Americans are frustrated and angry: It’s a primary reason why our political system is in turmoil. It’s the reality that oligarch Donald Trump has exploited, convincing working class people he cares about them, even as he gave his own billionaire class the largest tax cut in American history.
The vast majority of voters want:
- Good public schools,
- Inexpensive and comprehensive healthcare coverage
- Debt-free college,
- Clean air and water,
- Quality infrastructure,
- Reasonably priced housing,
- Action on climate change,
- Easy access to a union,
- Adequate Social Security and Medicare for retirement,
- And real competition in the marketplace that brings back the small family- and locally-owned businesses that have been wiped out in the 41 years since Reagan stopped enforcing our nation’s anti-trust laws in 1983.
Year after year we vote for these things, and year after year we get the opposite, almost entirely because of Republican politicians taking huge bribes from corporations and the morbidly rich to block any legislation that might raise their taxes to benefit the poor or even average working people.
(There is a handful of sellout “Problem Solver” Democrats, too, but they’re the minority: You’ll not find a single Republican in either the House or Senate who’s not currently on the take in a big way. Just check out Open Secrets.)
And now it appears that the six corrupt Republicans currently on the Supreme Court are preparing to make political bribery even easier for their well-heeled patrons.
In the case of Snyder v United States, which the Supreme Court will hear on April 15, James E. Snyder is claiming that when a public official accepts a “gift” from a person or corporation who has benefited from that public official’s actions, that should not be legally considered a bribe. Think of it instead as a “tip,” like you’d leave for good service in a restaurant.
Snyder is the former mayor of Portage, Indiana, who, federal prosecutors successfully argued in court, rigged a city bidding process for $1.125 million worth of new dump trucks to help out a friend who sold such trucks. After the contract was awarded to his buddy, his friend’s company gave a “tip” to Snyder of $13,000.
Snyder is appealing his bribery conviction before the Supreme Court next month, and his main argument is that the federal definition of bribery must include an explicit advance agreement, a spoken or written quid pro quo, to exchange money or gifts for official actions. And that all this explicit agreement stuff must happen before the official acts are taken.
If five or all of the six Republicans on the court agree with Snyder, it will end almost all federal bribery prosecutions of corrupt elected officials and we’ll see an explosion of politicians anxious to fall all over themselves to “earn a tip” after they bow to their “friends” wishes. (Katya Schwenk has written a great summary of the case and its implications for The Lever.)
It’s frankly shocking that four members of the court have already agreed to grant cert and hear the case, displaying a mind-boggling level of tolerance for political corruption.
If the Court rules as expected, will this be the straw that finally breaks the proverbial camel’s back? Will if feed the growing groundswell of disgust directed at Republicans on the Supreme Court and in Congress enough that people take action?
So far, the case has been virtually invisible in the media. But in four weeks it should be getting some attention and may well stir national outrage.
Democrats need to be ready.
The naked corruption of Republicans on the Supreme Court has only been matched since the 1980s by the naked corruption of Republican (and a handful of Democratic) politicians enabled by the court’s Citizens United decision and its predecessors. As former President Jimmy Carter told the world on my radio/TV program eight years ago:
It [Citizens United] violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president… So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over.
And that was before Trump and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) stole two Democratic seats on the court and packed it with sold-out right-wing cranks. Virtually all of America’s current crises track back to corrupt GOP appointees on the Supreme Court rewriting or outright cancelling over a century’s worth of good-government anti-corruption laws.
They’ve been at it continuously ever since former President Richard Nixon put Lewis Powell on the Court in 1972.
While not as sexy as the border or book bans, Democrats must make the corruption of Republicans on the Supreme Court a major issue in this year’s election.
Until recently, it’s been mostly a lonely crusade by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-N.Y.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the House.
You can call your member of Congress and your two senators at 202-224-3121 if you’d like to let them know that they can do many things about corruption on the court, and encourage them to elevate this to a major campaign issue this fall.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular