Such acts might not be driven by money, but they still are corrupt. The public still is being deprived of the official's honest services.
That was the beauty of the old honest-services law. It recognized that public officials can act corruptly, whether money is involved or not. Until Congress gets around to rewriting the honest-services law to address the Supreme Court's concerns about vagueness, it will be open season for public officials to commit corrupt acts--as long as the wrongdoing does not appear to involve money.
What could this mean to the public. Consider the case of former Chicago patronage chief Robert Sorich. He was sentenced in 2006 to 46 months in prison for convictions mainly on honest-services charges. Our research indicates that the Sorich case did not involve bribes or kickbacks, and he did not benefit monetarily. But he was involved in a scheme to hand out thousands of city jobs as political favors, regardless of the candidates' qualifications.
By almost any definition of the word we've seen, Sorich acted corruptly. But under the new Supreme Court finding, he committed no crime at all. And we suspect he soon will be a free man.
Public officials long have been likely to get away with all kinds of sleazy acts. That becomes even more likely now--especially if they make sure there is no clear money trail.
So where has the Supreme Court left us with its revisions to the honest-services law? In the short term, it appears encouraging. In the long term, it's much more of a mixed bag.
Are the victims of the Siegelman/Minor prosecutions more likely to receive their freedom? Maybe. Are they more likely to achieve true justice? Probably not. Is the public more likely to see public scoundrels get away with misdeeds? Yes.
Has the Supreme Court given citizens any reason to be more confident in their justice system? Definitely not.
That was the beauty of the old honest-services law. It recognized that public officials can act corruptly, whether money is involved or not. Until Congress gets around to rewriting the honest-services law to address the Supreme Court's concerns about vagueness, it will be open season for public officials to commit corrupt acts--as long as the wrongdoing does not appear to involve money.
What could this mean to the public. Consider the case of former Chicago patronage chief Robert Sorich. He was sentenced in 2006 to 46 months in prison for convictions mainly on honest-services charges. Our research indicates that the Sorich case did not involve bribes or kickbacks, and he did not benefit monetarily. But he was involved in a scheme to hand out thousands of city jobs as political favors, regardless of the candidates' qualifications.
By almost any definition of the word we've seen, Sorich acted corruptly. But under the new Supreme Court finding, he committed no crime at all. And we suspect he soon will be a free man.
So where has the Supreme Court left us with its revisions to the honest-services law? In the short term, it appears encouraging. In the long term, it's much more of a mixed bag.
Are the victims of the Siegelman/Minor prosecutions more likely to receive their freedom? Maybe. Are they more likely to achieve true justice? Probably not. Is the public more likely to see public scoundrels get away with misdeeds? Yes.
Has the Supreme Court given citizens any reason to be more confident in their justice system? Definitely not.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
2
