For the Defense - Volume 1, Issue 3 - 2016 - 35

to do so - on the identified 'question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,' and ...that merely arranging a meeting or hosting an event to discuss a matter does not count as a decision or action on that matter."31 Chief Justice Roberts made clear that the Justices' holding was not in any way an approval of the acts for which Governor McDonnell was accused of committing. Rather, in acknowledging the "distasteful" nature of the case, the Chief Justice made clear that the Court's "concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term 'official act' leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this Court."32 In McDonnell, the Supreme Court significantly narrowed the definition of what constitutes an "official act" under the federal bribery statues. The practical effect of this decision is immediate. No longer will federal prosecutors be able to charge a public official - or alleged accomplices - with bribery for merely performing acts that happen to be associated with his or her job. In the words of the Chief Justice himself, the government's interpretation of the term "official act" is not defined with the type of "sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited," or "in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."33 In other words, public officials need to be on notice as to the ways in which they cold interact with and help political donors and benefactors. As long as electoral politics has existed, major supporters of winning candidates have been afforded courtesies such as invitations to exclusive events and access to the politician. As such, had McDonnell's conviction been upheld, nearly every elected official who raises money for his or her campaign could have faced public corruption charges and federal prosecutors would have essentially had carte blanche to investigate any public official that they were to choose. The Supreme Court's holding in McDonnell leaves ample room for public officials to be prosecuted for taking and soliciting bribes, while, at the same time, acknowledging the ordinary tasks that politicians regularly perform on behalf of their supporters and/or constituents34 without something more.35 Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. See McDonnell v. United States, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 625 (Jan. 15, 2016); see also McDonnell v. United States, 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 3611 (Oct. 13, 2015). McDonnell v. United States, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 4062 (June 27, 2016). Id. at *31. Id. at *51. Id. at *21. Id. McDonnell, 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 3611, at *7-9. Id. at *10-11. Id. McDonnell v. United States, 792 F.3d 478, 513 (4th Cir. 2015). Id. at 505-06. Id. at 506. Id. at 493-94. Id. at 505. Id. at 507. Id. at 509-10. Id. at 510. Id. at 511. Id. Id. at 512. Id. McDonnell, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 4062, at *41. Id. Id. Id. at *41-42. Id. at *46. Vol. 1, Issue 3 | For The Defense 35

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Volume 1, Issue 3 - 2016