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.

collapse_already ,

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

Snapz ,

“Encouraged him” before or after?

collapse_already ,

The critical question, apparently.

Snapz ,

You can tell if it’s a bribe based on whether the gift was delivered by an African Swallow or a European Swallow?

ZombiFrancis ,

Unladen?

Snapz ,

You get it.

Maggoty ,

No, before is fine as long as they don’t have you on tape calling it a bribe and laughing maniacally. The last part is important as without it they cannot prove you knew you were committing a crime.

exanime ,

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

kjaeselrek ,

🌎🧑‍🚀🔫🧑‍🚀

Corkyskog ,

I don’t think this decision would apply to like federal purchasing officials… so not yet.

Maggoty ,

It’s a federal law, and federal SCOTUS. there’s no reason why it wouldn’t.

Corkyskog , (edited )

Is there somewhere with more details?

Also I meant non elected officials like purchasing officials.

Maggoty ,

I know but if kickbacks are legal for the town mayor in federal law then it’s hard to see how they wouldn’t be legal for purchasing officials. The logic is that after the fact “gratuities” are just gifts.

Corkyskog ,

Ethically one would say so, but legally there are different laws written that directly constrain things around bribery for career employees.

Somehow I am extremely skeptical this ruling even applies, and if it does I think it only invalidates one of plethora of laws and regulations…

If you take any training on how to get a contract with the government there is without fail a section that goes over the at least two laws, if not more, about why you can’t bribe them and how you shouldn’t bribe them in various ways.

exanime ,

regular federal officials were up for sale way before this… the combined “corporations are people” and “money is free speech” nonsense meant anyone can openly throw money at anyone up for election and that’s A-OK because free speech

Corkyskog ,

I meant more like non elected officials, like a Contracting Officer.

exanime ,

who cares about those?, when the Secretaries and all the high level officials running everything can be bought

Corkyskog ,

Because you get things easier and faster that way.

Maggoty ,

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.

BruceTwarzen ,

That’s not really news, but i’m always shocked how cheap they are.

r0ertel ,

Isn’t this simply the natural progression of capitalism in action? Everything’s for sale, everything has a price.

some_guy ,

It’s why they got elected.

Maggoty ,

*Appointed

lolcatnip ,

They weren’t elected.

some_guy ,

Oh, I thought the headline meant that elected officials (state officials) could engage in corruption. I didn’t read it as Justices of SC could do so, only that they said it’s ok.

arin ,

Guillotine

interdimensionalmeme ,

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

Dkarma ,

Worked for the French 🤷‍♂️

FordBeeblebrox ,

🛎️ SHAME!

Maybe a bit of flogging?

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.

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?

maxinstuff ,
@maxinstuff@lemmy.world avatar

Remember kids, bribes are a sometimes food 🙃

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

And I get embarrassed by Indiana once again. Sigh.

Prandom_returns ,

[OLIGARCHY INTENSIFIES]

MeatPilot ,
@MeatPilot@lemmy.world avatar

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

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.

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.

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.

OldChicoAle ,

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.

orcrist ,

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.

talentedkiwi ,

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

Silentiea ,
@Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

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

acetanilide ,

I should’ve been a consultant. I could have a few yachts by now…my country would be destroyed, but at least I could be in my own little world.

Maggoty ,

It’s a kickback. They just made kickbacks completely legal.

Waldowal ,
@Waldowal@lemmy.world avatar

Now the politicians want tips?!

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

Remember highest tipper gets to control the Domi.

Wait. I shouldn’t make that joke- sex work is way more honest.

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