Decision on Lobbyist Gifts
- Share via
I was appalled to read that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that “lavishing gifts on federal officials does not constitute bribery unless it results in an ‘official act’ by the recipient” (April 28). Bribery, as defined in Black’s law dictionary, includes “any gift, advantage, or emolument offered, given, or promised to, or asked or accepted by, any public officer to influence his behavior in office.” Does the high court really believe the intent when lavishing gifts is not to influence behavior? Whatever happened to the philosophy, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch”?
How can we, as average citizens in this country, expect ethical behavior from our elected or appointed government officials when they accept lavish gifts from special-interest sources? To compare the president receiving a team jersey from a championship sports team and the secretary of Education receiving a baseball cap when visiting a high school to gifts received from special-interest groups is laughable.
Speaking of lunch, apparently all nine justices were out when the vote was taken.
ALAN M. KRANE
Los Angeles
*
So lavishing expensive gifts on decision-makers, regardless of the intent, is not necessarily bribery. This argument could only be made by two parties--the givers and the receivers. Now, to which group does the Supreme Court belong?
The International Olympic Committee and Salt Lake City, two such parties, must welcome this decision.
RICHARD ROBINSON
Big Bear City
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox twice per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
