CORRUPTION

Issues

This case asks the Court to determine whether 52 U.S.C. § 30116 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) violates the First Amendment rights of political parties wishing to coordinate donations for their preferred candidates’ political campaigns. FECA was established to set a cap on a political party’s coordinated expenditures to prevent circumvention of contribution limits. Petitioners, National Republican Senatorial Committee (“NRSC”), National Republican Congressional Committee (“NRCC”), former Senator J.D. Vance, and former Representative Stephen Chabot (collectively “NRSC”), argue that the limits on coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment because they infringe their speech and political association rights. NRSC further argues that Colorado II, a case in which the Supreme Court previously upheld coordinated party expenditure limits, should not control this case. The Court-appointed attorney Roman Martinez, invited to support the judgment below, argues that the coordinated party expenditure limits are necessary to achieve the government interest in preventing quid-pro-quo corruption between donors and candidates, and that Colorado II must control this case’s outcome. Martinez further highlights several justiciability concerns. The outcome of this case could impact political corruption deterrence and Congress’ ability to regulate campaign finance.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether 18 U.S.C. Section 666—the statute for federal-funds bribery—also criminalizes gratuities. Snyder, a former mayor in Indiana, steered city contracts to a local company and then accepted from that company a fabricated consulting job worth $13,000. A jury convicted him of accepting an illegal gratuity under the statute. Snyder argues that the law only criminalizes bribes, however, because Congress has removed the language from the statute that used to refer to gratuities. The United States argues that the statute criminalizes gratuities through the word “rewarded,” while the word “influenced” refers to bribes. This case raises concerns about federal intrusion on state interests depending on how broadly courts will construe federal criminal statutes that seek to prohibit gratuities. It may also affect the outcome of how federal prosecutors will combat corruption at the state and local levels.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources