Yesterday, I posted on an effort by Rep. Jim Jordan to make stiffer the penalties for government corruption. I received more information last night and would like to pass it along to you...“Government officials must be held to the highest ethical and legal standards,” said Jordan, a member of the House Judiciary Committee. “Strengthening penalties for public corruption crimes will go a long way toward restoring the public’s trust in their government.”Team Jordan actually anticipated my follow-up question because my source included this bit as well:
Jordan said that current penalties for corruption crimes committed by public officials are insufficient, citing 2006 sentencing data showing that the mean prison sentence in bribery cases was 39 months. Bribery currently carries a lower maximum sentence than similar offenses such as counterfeiting (20 years), securities fraud (25 years), mail and wire fraud (30 years), and bank fraud (30 years).
The bill increases the maximum prison term in bribery and graft cases from 15 years to 30 years. It also broadens the application of federal fraud statutes to cover “any thing of value” in addition to money or property. This change ensures that intangible assets such as licenses, permits, government grants, and contract rights are within the scope of these statutes.
“Congress has already acted to pass legislation revoking the pension benefits of public officials who commit these crimes,” Jordan said. “Now we must take the next important step to ensure that the ‘time fits the crime.’”Just to clarify: this bill would have affected Congressman Bill Jefferson, who was indicted under the section of the bribery statute amended by the bill. It would not have affected the Bob Ney case, as he was convicted under different sections of the criminal code (conspiracy/false statements).
Joining this effort as a co-sponsor is freshman Democrat Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), a former sheriff. Congressmen Richard Baker (R-LA) and Gary Ackerman (D-NY) have also signed on as cosponsors.
Here is the text of the legislation in section form:
Sec. 1. Short Title. This section cites the short title of the bill as the "Clean Up Government Act of 2007."
Sec. 2. Application of Mail and Wire Fraud Statutes to Licenses and Other Intangible Property. This section broadens coverage of the mail and wire fraud criminal statutes. The term "money or property" has been interpreted by courts broadly to include a variety of items.
The proposed expansion to include "money, property or any other thing of value" is not meant to disturb existing case law interpreting "money or property" but to expand coverage of these statutes to ensure coverage of mail and wire fraud schemes involving intangible interests such as contract rights, licenses, permits, trade secrets, franchises, government grants, and goodwill.
Sec. 3. Venue for Federal Offenses. This section amends section 3237, which governs venue for offenses begun in one district and completed in another district , to clarify that venue exists in any district in which any portion of the offense is committed , any act in furtherance of the offense is committed, or in which the offense is completed. The intent of this provision is to expand venue to include districts where any part of the offense occurred.
Sec. 4. Theft or Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Financial Assistance. This section increases the maximum penalty for all offenses under this section from 10 years to 20 years.
Sec. 5. Penalty for Section 641 Violations. This section increases the maximum term of imprisonment for theft and embezzlement from 10 years to 20 years.
Sec. 6. Bribery and Graft. This section amends section 201 of title 18, the bribery and graft statute, to increase the maximum punishment for bribery from 15 years to 30 years imprisonment, and the maximum punishment for illegal gratuities from 2 years to 5 years imprisonment.
Sec. 7. Addition of District of Columbia to Theft of Public Money Offense. This section amends section 641 relating to theft from the government to include the District of Columbia government and agencies. The District of Columbia is already included in the general bribery statute (section 201) and the theft or bribery statute concerning programs receiving federal financial assistance (section 666).
Sec. 8. Clarification of Crime of Illegal Gratuities. This section amends section 201(c)(I)(A) & (B) of title 18, to reverse the holding of the Supreme Court in United States v. Sun Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398 (1999), which restricted the application of the illegal gratuities statute.
The expansion of the statute to include "official position" will ensure that gratuities given to a public official "for or because of' that official 's position will embrace a broader range of corrupt conduct that is not otherwise permitted by law.
Sec. 9. Clarification of Definition of "Official Act." This section amends the definition of "official act" in section 201(a)(3) to include conduct that falls within the range of official duty of the public official. This amendment is in response to a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit , us. v. Valdes, 437 F.3d 1276 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In Valdes, the court held that it was not official action when a local law enforcement officer searched a law enforcement database for information on particular individuals in exchange for money. The court held that the definition of official act required a showing by the government that Valdes' conduct involved "a question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy" and that searching a law enforcement database for profit did not constitute one of these actions.
This holding, however, dismisses a 1914 Supreme Court decision, us. v. Birdsall, 233 U.S. 223 (1914), in which the Court states that " [e]very action that is within the range of official duty comes within the purview of [the bribery statute] ." Id. at 230. The Court also noted that an official act need not be prescribed by statute or written rule or regulation. It is sufficient that the act is governed by a lawful requirement, established usage , or settled practice of the agency.
Despite Congress' reference to the Birdsall decision in its 1962 re-codification of the statute, the Valdes court found that Congress had not, in fact, adopted the Birdsall rule . This amendment explicitly adopts the language from the Supreme Court 's opinion.
Sec. 10. Amendment of the Sentencing Guidelines Relating to Certain Crimes. This section directs the United States Sentencing Commission to amend its guidelines and policy statements, as necessary, to reflect the increased penalties for violations of sections 201, 602, 641, 666 and 1962 of title 18.
