There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

phoenixz ,

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?

rbesfe ,

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!

Buddahriffic ,

It removes one of the angles that made attempting to bribe someone risky: they could just take the bribe but then do what they were going to do anyways. Can’t really retaliate legally without admitting you tried to bribe someone and if they told anyone about it in private, then there’s a good chance that motive will come out if the official ends up dead.

But now the whole process is going to be the official does the act and it’s the briber’s choice if they follow through.

Zink ,

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?

derf82 ,

Yet another thing that tens of millions of people across the country would instantly lose their job for

Would they? Vendors in the private sector are constantly handing out goodies to clients. Sports tickets, food, gift baskets and more. Hell, I’ve seen vendors pay for vacations in the private sector.

Also, as the case states, these things are largely illegal to varying degrees at the state level for state and local employees. This decision just said the Feds can’t pile on with additional charges.

TimLovesTech ,
@TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social avatar

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”.

Reverendender , (edited )

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

NegativeLookBehind ,
@NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world avatar

“We’ve investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing”

Maggoty ,

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.

KillingTimeItself ,

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

Lucidlethargy ,

Just yet ANOTHER consequence of Trump’s first term…

KillingTimeItself ,

unfortunately you may be right, but the onion also has a very specific type of title that they write out, and this was pretty close.

ChonkyOwlbear ,

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

NegativeInf ,

Same as it ever was.

KLISHDFSDF ,
@KLISHDFSDF@lemmy.ml avatar

… but worse!

NegativeInf ,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/832bfca6-cd3c-422d-ab7e-7ebacf501d07.gif

TetraVega ,

Same as it ever was!

Skydancer ,

Same as it ever was.

SLVRDRGN ,

Same as it ever was?

FlowVoid ,

And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile. And you may ask yourself, “Well, how did I get here?”

Thanks to the Supreme Court, that’s how

cybersandwich ,

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,"

Snapz ,

“At every level” she’s making specific reference to a specific certain level in the US judicial system here… Some pretty good, brave activism three - good luck getting your mom a house from a billionaire now Justice Jackson

I_Clean_Here ,

Your comment is nonsensical. Format that shit. And wtf, are you saying Judge Jackson is corrupt as well? You are making no sense.

timmy_dean_sausage ,

Their formatting was dog dukey, but I was still able to parse what they were saying fairly easily. They’re saying “good job judge Jackson. Too bad you won’t be able to get a free house from insert evil billionaire here (/s)”. While I agree with your sentiment, the way you go about pointing these things out can backfire, if done with a rude tone, such as the way you chose to do it. There you go; an unsolicited constructive criticism for an unsolicited constructive criticism. :)

stringere ,

I like you better than yourr brother James.

Maggoty ,

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.

JackOfNoTrades ,

This is clearly a dark road to go down and a terrible idea for the country. I personally couldn’t be anymore against this.

That said should there not be stricter rules on titles on a news subreddit? A lot of the titles I’ve seen recently are clearly prejudiced or undescriptive.

I think it’s important we maintain a high level of accuracy on news subreddits to limit the spread of misinformation.

Kbobabob ,

That title is directly from the article. You think the OP should instead use their own title?

JackOfNoTrades ,

My bad, I didn’t realise that that was the article title. I’m surprised that Vox chose to go with that title but obviously that’s got nothing to do with this post or the community rules.

cley_faye ,

This is not a subreddit, and this is the original article’s title.

_wizard ,
@_wizard@lemmy.world avatar

Right? Dude thinks this is reddit.

Tja ,

Is pepsi okay?

TheRealKuni ,

That’s exactly what Pepsi is.

Chewget ,

Shitty coke

tacosplease ,

What do we call the Lemmy version of a subreddit?

fuzzzerd ,

Community.

tacosplease ,

Thank you

tacosplease ,

There are already rules. One of the rules is that the title of the post has to match the title of the article. This post follows that rule.

FireTower ,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

Posted this in another thread on the issue but worth saying again because most people see to be confused as to the actual implications of this ruling:

Although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a state or local official after the official act may be unethical or illegal under other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate §666.

Tldr the ruling only was about in relation to one law. The party may be guilty of a form of corruption under a different law.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/…/23-108_8n5a.pdf

Read page 2 of the syllabus where it says “Held:” until page 4 if you want the shorter version.

Otherwise there’s a 16 page explanation under the “opinion of the court” section directly after the syllabus, for those who are interested in a longer explanation.

Silentiea ,
@Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Can I get a teal deer for that tldr?

FireTower ,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

TLDR of the TLDR:

Court said the gov charged him with the wrong thing. Look for another charge, he’s probably screwed.

Maggoty , (edited )

Except SCOTUS will just strike down the next one too. The modern court has never supported bribery charges that come before it.

Edit to add a quick history from the last 25 years.

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.

pyre ,

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

Snapz ,

NOT THAT COUNTER!!! That is the bribe counter! You put it NEXT the bribe counter so nobody gets the wrong idea.

Maggoty ,

No that’s fine too, we’ll just blow up the journalist and bury the story.

ChaoticEntropy ,
@ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

Politicians can only 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.

Dkarma ,

Just a reminder that bullets can be bribes.

bhamlin ,

It depends on how they’re delivered. Generally bullets are interpreted as a threat.

bss03 ,

Vocabulary question X + shell + powder = bullet, what is X?

Because usually the threat is that X will be delivered through use of powder the destination of the shell is ambiguous but not included in the delivery.

When you deliver while (unfired) bullets it’s generally not considered a threat.

Maggoty ,

That very much depends on how the unfired bullet(s) is/are delivered. Did we leave a bullet on the lieutenant’s pillow or did we give the politician a box of the latest match grade hunting rounds with a bow on it?

Maggoty ,

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.

Snapz ,

Cake or Death, but if you choose cake, it’s only given AFTER the death

arin ,

Guillotine

interdimensionalmeme ,

Oh Arin ! That’s your sokution to everything ☝️☝️😁

Dkarma ,

Worked for the French 🤷‍♂️

FordBeeblebrox ,

🛎️ SHAME!

Maybe a bit of flogging?

bobs_monkey ,

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?

Crikeste ,

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’.

feannag ,

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.

nilloc ,

Billionaires can just make a coupon thousand shell orgs to funnel $100ks into their pockets.

stoly ,

Legislators, executives, and jurists aren’t officials in the sense you mean. They are referring to government employees, who can still receive every joyful punishment a prosecutor can dream of.

bobs_monkey ,

Well, perhaps the wording should be amended to encompass all public employees. But that would require the law be rewritten by the people that benefit from it, so, yeah.

rayyy ,

Can we start actually enforcing this please?

No. You can’t bind the rich.

maxinstuff ,
@maxinstuff@lemmy.world avatar

Remember kids, bribes are a sometimes food 🙃

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •