The case concerns James Snyder, who in 2013 was serving as the mayor of small-town Portage, Indiana. Late that year, the city of Portage awarded a contract to Great Lakes Peterbilt, a trucking company, and bought five tow trucks from them; a few weeks later, Snyder asked for and accepted a check for $13,000 from the company. Snyder was found guilty of corruption and sentenced to 21 months in federal prison. He argued that the kickback was not illegal because it came after he awarded a contract to the company that ultimately paid him off, not before.
Absurdly the US supreme court agreed, classifying such payments as mere tokens of appreciation and claiming they are not illegal when they are not the product of an explicit agreement meant to influence official acts in exchange for money.
One could argue it both ways:
ReplyDelete1) It's a gratuity. The mayor didn't know that helping out this company would land him money and therefore it didn't affect his decision. It's not a bribe, just a show of appreciation.
2) It's a bribe for the future. The next time this company approaches him, he'll expect another payment and base his decision on that.
The nafka mina is: what if the company never approaches him again? Do we say that since there really wasn't an expectation of payment, it's not a bribe and since they'll never approach him again, there's no worry it'll affect his interactions with them or do we say that other companies will learn that he likes "gratuities" and offer them but as bribes?