High Court Rules Lobbyist Gifts Not Necessarily Bribes

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that lavishing gifts on federal officials does not constitute bribery unless it results in an “official act” by the recipient--a decision that will make it harder to prosecute corporations and lobbyists trying to curry favor in Washington.

The court said, for example, that buying meals for powerful officials, or giving them luggage and airline tickets--even in hopes of winning their favor--is not illegal.

Federal regulations still prohibit executive officers, judges and members of Congress from accepting money or expensive gifts. However, Tuesday’s ruling removes the main legal threat against lobbyists and others whose attempts to win influence stop short of bribery.

A lawyer for the American League of Lobbyists praised the court for clarifying the rules, but a government watchdog group called the decision an invitation to corruption.

The 9-0 ruling deals another setback to independent counsel Donald C. Smaltz, the Los Angeles lawyer who led an aggressive, four-year, $20-million probe of alleged corruption involving former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy.

In December, a jury here quickly acquitted Espy of all criminal charges related to his acceptance of gifts from various lobbyists that totaled $33,000. Jurors said Smaltz had gone overboard in bringing the case and failed to show Espy did anything in return for the gifts.

The high court’s decision overturns one of Smaltz’s earlier victories, a criminal conviction and $1.5-million fine levied against the Sun-Diamond Growers of California, a raisin and nut cooperative based in Pleasanton, Calif. Its Washington lobbyist had given Espy tennis tournament tickets, luggage, meals and a crystal bowl that were valued at $5,900.

But Smaltz had no evidence Sun-Diamond sought specific favors from Espy. Espy said he did not even know the tennis tickets and other gifts were paid for by the cooperative. Its lobbyist, Richard Douglas, was a college friend, and Espy said he assumed the gifts were an act of personal friendship.

Federal law makes bribery a crime, both for the giver and the recipient. Winning a conviction is difficult, however. The prosecutor must show the two parties made an agreement to give something--such as $10,000--in exchange for a specific act, such as awarding a government contract.

The ruling does not affect the enforcement of numerous state anti-corruption laws and gift bans.

California, like many states, has its own rules that limit how much officials and lawmakers can accept or lobbyists can give. Those rules, however, impose civil penalties and rarely result in criminal charges, said an official of the state’s Department of Justice.

Smaltz charged Sun-Diamond with violating a separate anti-corruption law that makes it a crime to “give anything of value” to a high federal official, or for the official to accept “anything of value.”

While not commonly used, the statute gives prosecutors a weapon against those who have sought to buy influence with federal regulators by giving them lavish gifts. It has also been used to prosecute members of Congress who have shown a pattern of accepting expensive gifts from those seeking favors.

Smaltz went after Sun-Diamond on the theory that it gave gifts to the Agriculture secretary because of his “official position.” He noted that its cooperative members may have wanted Espy to try to block a pending environmental regulation that could have halted the use of a certain pesticide.

But the high court said Smaltz’s theory ignores the plain words of the law. The Illegal Gratuities Act of 1962 says it is illegal to give gifts to a federal official “for or because of any official act performed or about to be performed.”

Currying favor with officials is not illegal under this act, said Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking for the court.

“The government must prove a link between the thing of value conferred upon a public official and a specific official act,” he said in U.S. vs. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 98-131.

It would be bizarre to make it illegal for anyone to give “token gifts” to a high official, he said. For example, the championship sports teams that come to be honored at the White House would be guilty of a crime for giving the president a team jersey. So too would the high school principal who gives the visiting secretary of Education a school baseball cap, Scalia said.

His opinion noted the “official act” could be in the past or in the future.

“We are enormously gratified” by the decision, said Sun-Diamond’s lawyer Eric W. Bloom. Though Smaltz could seek a retrial, “we are confident the conduct in which Sun-Diamond engaged is not the type of conduct Congress sought to criminalize,” Bloom said.

A disappointed Smaltz issued a statement saying the ruling “allows too much latitude to those who attempt to buy governmental favor.” He did not say whether he would seek to retry the cooperative.

In reaction to the decision, lawyers who had filed briefs in the case differed sharply on whether the ruling would simply stop overzealous prosecutions or open a loophole to corruption.

Samuel Buffone, the lawyer for the lobbyists’ group, said he was pleased the court reined in the law and focused it on true corruption.

“This just means the government will have to prove its case. It will have to show something was given in hopes of influencing an official act,” he said. “This real danger of this broad, imprecise law was when it got in the hands of an overly aggressive independent counsel.”

But David Vladeck, executive director of Public Citizen, said he fears the anti-corruption law will become meaningless. “This city is awash in money, but the actors here are too sophisticated to make explicit demands. No one says, ‘I’ll take you, the official, to the most lavish restaurant so we can decide on changing a federal regulation,’ ” he said. “The Supreme Court is saying it is perfectly OK to lavish gifts on officials in hopes of influencing them.”