Chatterbox's pedantic contribution to this story was to observe, after consulting Washington attorney Marc Miller, that what Novak described met the statutory definition of bribery under United States Code, Title 18, Section 201, "Bribery of public officials and witnesses. (It's bribery whenever "anything of value" is promised "with intent to influence any official act," even when the money is offered to another "person or entity." There's an exception under the Constitution's "speech and debate clause" for government business, but campaign contributions aren't government business.)
Earlier this week, Chatterbox urged Rep. Nick Smith, R-Mich., to reveal who attempted to bribe him into voting for the Bush Medicare prescription bill, which he opposed on the grounds that it was too expensive. After the Nov. 22 vote, Smith had complained to the Associated Press that somebody--the AP report, in a paraphrase, said it was "House GOP leaders"--had exerted "the most intense and strongest pressure to change my vote that I've ever experienced." Subsequently, Robert Novak had reported in his column that "On the House floor, Nick Smith was told"--by whom, Novak didn't say--that "business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote." Smith is retiring at the end of this term, and his son Brad is seeking the Republican nomination to succeed him.
First, note that dynastic succession such as this means that a politician may, in effect, be immortal. Congressman Smith has gotten old and retired, but even in his last term, he has to worry about his votes, because he wants his son to be able to succeed him. Voters should like this kind of dynastic succession, because it solves the end-period problem. A Congressman with children cannot go wild in his final term in office. As someone observed of Keynes's remark that "In the long run we are all dead": only someone without children would have said that.
Second, *is* this bribery? I'm not sure. The statute really doesn't help. It is commonly accepted as okay for Congressman A to vote for Bill X if Congressman B will vote for Bill Y. A vote surely counts as "anything of value", but if so, then logrolling is illegal under USC Title 18 Section 201. Do we want it to be illegal? I think not. But how about a promise by Congressman A to vote for Bill X if Congressman B will come and give a speech on behalf of Congressman A to help his re-election? That seems okay too. But then how about a promise by Congressman A to vote for Bill X if Congressman B will help raise funds for his re-election? But then how about a promise by Congressman A to vote for Bill X if Congressman B will give him funds for his re-election?
I don't have an answer on this, but I think it's a question worth thinking about.
[ http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/04.02.05a.htm . Erasmusen@yahoo.com. ]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.