Court Refuses to Dismiss Lawmaker’s Bribery Charges
A congressman has no special protection from criminal charges, a federal appeals panel ruled Wednesday in allowing a racketeering and bribery trial for Rep. Joseph M. McDade (R-Pa.).
McDade had used the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause in asking for dismissal of the charges.
Attorneys for the House of Representatives supported McDade’s argument before the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, dismissed the arguments.
The clause McDade cited was inserted into the Constitution to block the executive branch from using its powers of investigation and prosecution to interfere with the legislative work of Congress. While extending broad protection to legislative activities, the clause generally has not been interpreted as barring prosecution of a congressman for bribery.
McDade’s attorney, Sal Cognetti, had not reviewed the decision but said he remained “extremely confident that the congressman will be vindicated.” He said McDade can request a rehearing before the full 3rd Circuit, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or go to trial.
McDade was indicted in May, 1992, on two counts of conspiracy, two counts of accepting a gratuity and one count of racketeering.
Prosecutors charged that over a five-year period, McDade extracted more than $100,000 worth of favors from various defense contractors in return for helping them secure more than $50 million worth of contracts.
According to the indictment, the favors included a $7,500 scholarship for one of his children, plane flights and a sports coat.
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
