BRIBERY
The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.
The expectation of a particular voluntary action in return is what makes the difference between a bribe and a private demonstration of goodwill. To offer or provide payment in order to persuade someone with a responsibility to betray that responsibility is known as seeking UNDUE INFLUENCE over that personâ’s actions.
When someone with power seeks payment in
exchange for certain actions, that person is said
to be peddling influence. Regardless of who initi-
ates the deal, either party to an act of bribery can
be found guilty of the crime independently of
the other.
A bribe can consist of immediate cash or of
personal favors, a promise of later payment, or
anything else the recipient views as valuable.
When the U.S. military threatened to cancel a
Texas relocation company’s contracts to move
families to and from military bases, the com-
pany allegedly gave four representatives in Con-
gress an all-expenses-paid weekend in Las Vegas
in January 1989, and $2,500 in speaking fees.
The former president of the company was
indicted by a federal GRAND JURY in 1994 on
bribery charges for both gifts.
No written agreement is necessary to prove
the crime of bribery, but usually a prosecutor
must show corrupt intent. Bribery charges may
involve public officials or private individuals. In
the world of professional sports, for example,
one boxer might offer another a payoff to
“throw†(deliberately lose) an important fight.
In the corporate arena, a company could bribe
employees of a rival company for recruitment
services or other actions at odds with their
employer’s interests. Even when public officials
are involved, a bribe does not need to be harm-
ful to the public interest in order to be illegal.
When a public official accepts a bribe, he or
she creates a conflict of interest. That is, the offi-
cial cannot accommodate the interests of
another party without compromising the
responsibilities of her or his position.
There is not always consensus over what
counts as a bribe. For instance, in many states
and at the federal level, certain gifts and cam-
paign contributions are not considered bribes
and do not draw prosecution unless they can be
linked to evidence of undue influence. In this
regard, negative public perception of private
contributions to elected officials as payola has
caused most states to establish legislative ethics
committees to review the public-private rela-
tionships of house and senate members. Fur-
thermore, both houses of the U.S. Congress
passed legislation in 1994 restricting gifts to no
more than $20 in value.
The Supreme Court further clarified the law
by setting standards for federal bribery statutes
in United States v. Sun Diamond Growers, 526
U.S. 398, 119 S.Ct. 1402, 143 L.Ed.2d 576 (1999).
This case grew out of the prosecution of Mike
Espy, secretary of agriculture in the Clinton
administration, for allegedly accepting bribes.
After Espy was acquitted of all charges, the INDE-
PENDENT COUNSEL charged Sun Diamond
Growers, a trade association for a large agricul-
tural cooperative, with violating a federal gratu-
ities law that prohibits giving gifts to public
officials in exchange for favorable government
actions.
After Sun Diamond was convicted of the
charges it took its case to the Supreme Court.
The Court concluded that a person did not vio-
late the law merely by giving a gift to a public
official. Prosecutors must show that there was a
connection between a specific official act in the
past or future and the gift. Justice ANTONIN
SCALIA noted that if the government did not
have to prove this linkage then a token gift such
as the presentation of a sports jersey by a cham-
pionship team to the president could be
regarded as a criminal act.
The Court also noted differences in various
federal bribery statutes, which included broad
prohibitions. In the present case, the language of
the gratuities statute did not reveal a similar
intent by Congress; instead, the Court viewed
this law as one strand of a complicated web of
laws and regulations addressing official
behavior.
It is common for both the recipient and the
provider of a bribe to be accused, although
bribery is not a joint offense—that is, one per-
son’s guilt does not affect the other’s. Such was
the case when a popular Massachusetts state
senator allegedly accepted monthly payments
from an investment BROKER in exchange for try-
ing to persuade state officials to send state PEN-
SION business to the broker. The legislator and
the broker were both indicted on misdemeanor
charges in early 1995.
U.S. companies that engage in international
bribery can become targets of investigation at
home. In January 1995, a former sales director of
Lockheed Corporation pleaded guilty to violat-
ing the federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1 et seq., Allen R. Love told a U.S. district court that he had paid and helped to
cover up a bribe to an Egyptian politician for
arranging Egypt’s 1989 purchase of three Lockheed
transport planes.
Congress adopted the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act in 1977 to outlaw payments that are
intended to win contracts from foreign officials.
Ironically, the law’s passage was triggered by testimony
from a former vice president of the same
Lockheed Corporation at a U.S. congressional
hearing in 1976. In that case, the company’s vice
president admitted to bribing the prime minister
of Japan with more than $1.9 million in the
early 1970s, so that Japan would buy Lockheed’s
TriStar wide-body jets.
The severity of bribery can reach the felony
level, punishable by a fine or imprisonment, or
both.However, charges are sometimes reduced in
exchange for helping to convict accomplices. For
instance, in June 1994, Love pleaded innocent to
felony charges of bribery and conspiracy. Later,
he pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of
“indirectly” conspiring, as part of a plea agreement
in which he agreed to testify against the
corporation itself, which was also a defendant.
The international sports community was
rocked by a bribery scandal involving the 2002
Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Two officials of the Utah committee that secured
the games were indicted in 2000 on charges of
wire and MAIL FRAUD, conspiracy, and interstate
travel in aid of RACKETEERING. They were
charged with paying an official of the U.S.
Olympic Committee (USOC) to help influence
the selection of Salt Lake City by the International
Olympic Committee (IOC). The USOC
official who received the bribes later pleaded
guilty to several criminal charges including the
accepting of a bribe.
Federal prosecutors contended that the two
officials had paid $1 million to influence votes of
several IOC members. In addition, they had
allegedly diverted some $130,000 of the bid
committee’s income, and had altered books and
created false contracts to conceal their actions.
The two officials denied that they had done anything
wrong, contending that the payments were
intended as grants and scholarships for poor
athletes. Following the indictments, ten members
of the IOC either resigned or were expelled
from the organization, and many reforms were
undertaken to prevent bribery. The USOC also
authorized an independent review of its practices.
However, the two Utah officials successfully
challenged the bribery charges. In July 2001, a
federal judge dismissed the bribery charges,
finding that a Utah bribery statute could not be
applied to the defendants’ actions. In December
2001, the judge dismissed the remaining criminal
counts.
FURTHER READINGS
McChesney, Fred S. 1997. Money for Nothing: Politicians,
Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion. Cambridge,
Mass.: Univ of Harvard Press.
Noonan, John Thomas. 1984. Bribes. New York: Macmillan.
PBS: Online NewsHour. February 11, 1999. “IOC: Cleaning
House.” Available online at
June 6, 2003).
