The high court’s 6-3 opinion along ideological lines found the law criminalizes bribes given before an official act, not rewards handed out after.

Eg: it’s ok to give Supreme Court Justices money after they rule in your favor because it’s normal and ok to regularly hand them amounts much larger than their salary. The Democrats on the court were the dissenters.

  • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    131
    ·
    6 months ago

    The Supreme Court basically just ruled that it’s perfectly acceptable for officials to accept and even ask for bribes, just so long as they wait a few weeks after the service for which the bribe is meant to pay.

    Seriously. That’s exactly what this ruling in effect says - that bribes are only bribes if they’re paid before the service is rendered, and if they’re paid after, that’s perfectly fine.

    And people still wonder why I’m such a cynic…

      • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        They called it a gratuity to try to divert attention from the bludgeoningly obvious fact that it’s just a postdated bribe.

        This is what this country has come to. In the face of an ever-growing failure of the government to represent the will of the people because their influence has been bought and paid for by moneyed interests, the Supreme Court is legalizing bribery.

        Of course, it’s certainly not a coincidence that one of the institutions that’s been bought and paid for is the Supreme Court itself.

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 months ago

      The dumbest part about this ruling is it treats every bribe as unrelated to every other bribe. The majority ignored the basic trait of every human with a prefrontal cortex, that we judge future planning by past experience.

      So even ignoring the “first bribe is free” effect of the decision, what will happen in effect is that legislators and politicians will pass laws they think will gain bribes, be paid by interests that benefit after the fact, and after that without a single word, have an understanding that such back-dated bribes can continue indefinitely. Regular, consistent bribery is legal and easy, under this ruling.

      • Clasm@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        This is it, exactly. They are going to start voting in a way that generates themselves the most future gifts, actual justice be damned.

        Who do you think is going to be able to afford future gifts? Because it sure as hell isn’t going to be the little guy.

    • Hugin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Not exactly the AP article is bad. You still can’t make an agreement before the act and get paid latter or ask for a payment latter.

      However as long as you keep it sufficiently wink wink nudge nudge you are fine as intent now has to be proven.

      • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        I don’t see any possible way it couldn’t. Every official is going to expect a “gratuity” in exchange for approving a contract, and every contractor who expects to succeed is going to go into every deal with the understanding that they’re going to be expected to pay a “gratuity” after the deal is finalized.

        The upshot of it all can only be wholly institutionalized pay-to-play, with only the ultimately entirely meaningless requirement that the payment has to be deferred instead of up front.