today's Supreme Court ruling encourages flagrant corruption

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling today that is not getting enough attention. In a case called Snyder v. United States, the court ruled that federal law does not prohibit paying state and local officials for favors if the money isn’t promised in advance. - The ruling hinges on a distinction that defies common sense. - Prohibited bribes, according to the majority opinion, are “payments made or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the official with respect to that future official act.” - Permitted gratuities, on the other hand, are “payments made to an official after an official act as a token of appreciation.” - So if you want to, uh, “express appreciation” to a state or local politician, just wait until after they do you a favor to give them their reward. - This ruling encourages flagrant corruption. Here’s what Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, told the national media: “This ruling undercuts one of the most important anti-corruption statutes used by prosecutors to hold to account government officials who accept money in exchange for official actions. Whether cash is handed to an official before or after the award of a government contract or other favorable official action, accepting cash for favors should be barred.” The good news — such as it is — is that Congress can revise the federal anti-corruption law to clarify the language the Supreme Court got hung up on. [Tell Congress:]( [The ruling in Snyder v. United States removed an important barrier to official corruption at the state and local levels. Congress must revise the federal anti-corruption law to restore commonsense prohibitions against corruption.]( [Click to add your name now.]( Thanks for taking action. For progress, - Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen [Donate]( | Public Citizen | 1600 20th Street NW | Washington DC 20009 | [Unsubscribe]( [supporter]