Let Me Give You a Tip

Yesterday, in one of its end-of-the-year decisions, Snyder v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled to allow political bribery.  Really.  Not all political bribery, just if it’s not after the fact, and with a knowing wink.

The case concerned the cash-strapped, then-mayor of Portage, Indiana, who prosecutors charged rigged the bidding for new garbage trucks and afterwards receive a “thank you for being good at your job” gift from the head of the truck company that won the bid.

Justice Neil Gorsuch referred to this as a “gratuity” and equated this $13,000 "gratuity" to a mayor to taking a teacher to the Cheesecake Factory as a thank you.  Really.  What's the difference, Justice Gorsuch wondered -- no doubt as Justices Thomas and Alito giggled. As they put out a "We accept tips" jar.

One difference, of course, is that if you ate $13,000 worth of cheesecake at one sitting, it would probably kill you.

It all concerned a federal statute known as §666 (man, is that number appropriate here…), which deals with gifts that state and local officials can accept.  (The ruling does not appear to pertain to federal officials, though if not, it would see an easy next step.)  The decision was written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, apparently with a straight face, though he tried to justify it by saying the ruling doesn’t transcend local laws against bribery.  It only provides a map for driving around them. 

Kavanaugh wrote that "State and local governments often regulate the gifts that state and local governments may accept.  The federal law] 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, [the federal law] leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials."

See?!  There’s that “Gratuities” again.  It’s hard not to love it.

Kavanaugh added that “state or local official can violate §666 when he accepts an up-front payment for a future official act or agrees to a future reward for a future official act.  But a state or local official does not violate §666 if the official has taken the official act before any reward is agreed to, much less given. Although a gratuity offered and accepted after the official act may be unethical or illegal under other federal, state, or local laws, the gratuity does not violate §666."

At the very least, I hope he got a chuckle out of all those references about not violating “666.”  As much as he – and Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- must have loved calling them “gratuities.”

What the Justices voting in the affirmative here seem to miss (or see clearly, but just didn’t care) is that a ten buck tip is one thing, but when you hit $13,000 to a public official, whenever it’s given, the rotting fish starts to smell.  For that matter, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are state and local laws prohibiting public officials accepting a $10 “gratuity.”  After all, once the first public official (and would-be briber) knows they can get away with getting an after-the-fact bribe, as long as nothing was agreed to officially beforehand, then all public officials know they can, too.  And further, that erodes public trust in government.  Y’know, the whole “Appearance of impropriety” thingee.

Though perhaps when some Justices like Clarence Thomas are dealing with $4 million worth of “gratuities,” a $13,000 tip probably is just pocket change.

Just to put some perspective on this all, I have a grad school friend Peter Carlisle who was the Chief Prosecuting Attorney of Honolulu for about 16 years, and then got elected the city’s mayor.  At one point while in office – after he announced for mayor – he flew to Southern California for a conference of law officials in Orange County.  But instead of lying there directly, he flew to Los Angeles, so we could visit.  I picked him up at the airport, and after paying for parking, I handed him the $8 LAX receipt, since it did me no good – but he wouldn’t accept it.  He said this flight to Los Angeles was a pleasure visit, not an official government trip.  If he’d flown directly to Orange County, that would have been different.

Yes, I know, that might be carrying things to extremes, but that’s also how the concept of being honorable and the “Appearance of impropriety” works.

Note to Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh. Roberts and Coney-Barrett:  See above. And just know that Peter Carlisle is not a tree-hugging liberal, he’s a Republican.  So, it’s actually possible.  Rare though such things apparently may be.

I was going to say that it probably helps when you were a Chief Prosecuting Attorney for 16 years, but then an image of Rudy Giuliani popped into mind.  Though I would like to believe he’s the exception.  Though given the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, I don’t know if my belief is supported.

In case you find this ruling too bizarre to believe, you can read a full article about it all here.

And this seems an appropriate place to add that if you have enjoyed these free columns over the years, just click on the "Buy Now on Amazon.com" icon in the upper right of any page before the next time you go to Amazon to buy anything.  It will take you directly to Amazon as normal, but a code will be attached so that I will receive about .000001% of whatever you buy during that session.  Last year, I made about $20 this way!  (Thanks to everyone who participated.  After the fact, of course.)  Oh, sure, it's not exactly a "gratuity," and not anywhere near $13,000.  But if I keep it up for another 650 years, I'll be there!

Also, I offer nothing in advance for this.  The only thing I guarantee is that during the next six centuries, I will at some point write about Chicago and reference the beloved Northwestern University.