How A Supreme Court Decision Changed Federal Public Corruption Prosecutions (Why State and Local Laws Matter)

Concerns regarding public corruption have long held the nation’s attention. Backlash to the excesses of the political machines of the Gilded Age led to anti-corruption reforms that shape our politics today. In 1905, a collection of speeches by New York State politician (and veteran of New York City’s Democratic machine) George Washington Plunkitt was published under the title Plunkitt of Tammany Hall. In these speeches, Plunkitt lays out his theories for a successful career in politics, including differentiating between “honest graft” and “dishonest graft”. To Plunkitt, “honest graft” benefited both the public and the politician committing the graft. Plunkitt cites an example where he used insider information on the siting of a new city park to purchase the land in the area, which he then sold to the city for the parkland at an inflated price. Plunkitt benefited financially, and the city and its residents enjoyed the benefits of a new park. By contrast, “dishonest graft” only benefits the politician committing the graft; Plunkitt cited the Philadelphia Republican machine of the era, which looted public resources for their own gain.

Corruption laws expanded throughout the following century. However, a 2016 Supreme Court ruling has limited the scope of corruption prosecutions, blurring the lines between “honest graft” and “dishonest graft”.

The McDonnell Case and Supreme Court Ruling

In January 2014, ten days after he left office, former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife were indicted on federal corruption charges related to their acceptance of $175,000 in loans, gifts, and other benefits from a Virginia businessman, Jonnie Williams. A donor to McDonnell’s campaign, Williams was the former CEO of a company promoting the use of a tobacco compound for health usage. Williams gave loans and gifts to McDonnell and his wife in the hopes that the Governor would support using public funds to promote research into this compound at the commonwealth’s universities. McDonnell and his wife were convicted of public corruption in September 2014, and the former Governor was sentenced to two years in prison in January 2015. McDonnell appealed the conviction, and when the Supreme Court took up the appeal in June 2016, it was unanimously vacated. 

The decision hinged on the definition of “official act” as it appears in federal bribery statutes. Federal law defines "official act” as “any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.” Governor McDonnell alleged that he had never been directly pressured by Mr. Williams to take any official action in exchange for the benefits provided to him. The justices unanimously agreed, finding that hosting an event or arranging a meeting to discuss policy concerns should not be considered “official acts”. Since the federal government could not produce evidence that Mr. Williams intended for the benefits to be directly related to his preferred policy outcome, the Court vacated Mr. McDonnell’s conviction.

McDonnell v. U.S.'s Impact on Federal Corruption Prosecutions

The verdict in McDonnell v. U.S. narrowed the definition of bribery, allowing politicians previously jailed on corruption charges to appeal their sentences.

High-Profile Cases Affected by the Ruling

One such example was former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson, who successfully appealed his conviction on bribery charges and was released from prison eight years into a thirteen-year sentence for bribery. Two New York State legislative leaders, former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and former Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, also had corruption charges overturned, but both were retried and convicted. The ruling also impacted the 2017 federal corruption trial of then-New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, as the narrowed definition of “official act” led a jury to declare a mistrial on allegations that Menendez had accepted bribes from a major campaign donor. 

Snyder v. United States Further Narrows Federal Law

In June 2024, the Court again narrowed federal public corruption law in Snyder v. United States when it ruled that federal prosecutors had erred in prosecuting the former mayor of Portage, Indiana for allegedly violating a federal statute that prohibits state and local government officials from accepting “anything of value of any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded” for an official act. The Court held that James Snyder had not violated the law because the law only applies to bribes, not gratuities.

A Shift from Federal to State and Local Prosecution

These rulings and others like them are likely to have a chilling effect on federal prosecutions of state officials’ corrupt behavior. The ruling in the Snyder case, in part, invoked concerns about federalism with the opinion author, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, arguing that the statute at issue supplants state law with federal law and violates the rights of state and local governments to regulate the acceptance of gratuities by their own public officials. It is clear that to combat public corruption, the states can no longer rely on federal law to regulate this behavior. Instead, state and local prosecutors will have to enforce their own laws on their public officials.

Implications for State Government Relations and Lobbying

State government relations professionals should still exercise caution when giving anything of value to a public official. While federal corruption prosecutions are likely to decrease as a result of these Supreme Court decisions, state and local prosecutors still have a number of tools available to them to punish corrupt officials and those corrupting them.

Navigating State and Local Gift Laws

For example, Michigan has tightened regulations on lobbyists providing gifts, which made headlines recently after the Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives was accused of receiving Lions tickets at below fair market value from a lobbyist. Moreover, ethics laws for lobbyists and penalties for violations differ from those imposed on politicians. A thorough review of state and local gift laws is an important step in your government relations strategy if that strategy includes gifts to public officials. 

Public Perception and Political Pressure

Further, it is important to understand that a government relations professional does not just need to be aware of the statutes and rules surrounding their activity but also the public perception of their activity. In the annual Survey of American Fears conducted by Chapman University, corrupt government officials ranked as Americans’ top fear for the tenth year in a row (69% in 2025, up four percentage points from 2024 and down ten percentage points from the survey’s high point in 2020/2021). Good government groups also remain active in highlighting political corruption; for example, the Colorado chapter of Common Cause, a liberal-leaning nonprofit, recently filed a complaint against Democratic lawmakers who attended a Vail retreat with lobbyists in attendance. With over two-thirds of Americans expressing a fear of corrupt government officials, pressure may be high on state and local leaders to punish even perceived instances of corruption.

Need Compliance Help? Get In Touch!

Keeping up with rules, deadlines, and often confusing requirements is a daunting prospect for teams of all sizes. Let us manage your federal, state, and local registration and reporting responsibilities, or manage your Campaign Finance program. Read more about our Compliance Services here, or get in touch here.