Paul Powell’s Shoebox
In 1970 Democrat Paul Powell made a salary of $30,000 annually while serving as Illinois Secretary of State. Powell was a heart patient at the Mayo Clinic when he unexpectedly passed away. Those who cleared out his residence, a Springfield, Illinois hotel suite, were shocked to find not only 30 cases of whiskey, but also two overnight cases, an attache case, two briefcases and a shoebox all filled with cash, approximately $750,000 of cash. Shoeboxes stuffed with money came to be a symbol of Illinois corrupt politics.
Supreme Court case 18 U.S.C. §666
James Snyder was the mayor of a small town in Indiana. His city of awarded a contract to a trucking company for five tow trucks. After the transaction Snyder asked for and was given $13,000 from the company. Snyder was tried for and convicted of corruption. Snyder’s legal team argued that the payment was not an illegal ‘kickback’ because it came after, not before, the transaction. The Supreme Court agreed with Snyder. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority’s verdict. The Court declared Snyder’s $13,000 was a mere token of appreciation from the trucking company and not the result of an agreement intended to influence Snyder’s actions as a public official. The Snyder decision will require prosecutors to establish a corrupt intent to bribe a public official before an act occurs. The Snyder ruling will lower ethical standards by legalizing gratiuties given in appreciation of an official act as long as that ‘tip’ is given after the official action. Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented.
The Snyder decision differentiates between money passing hands before the official act and after that official act. Is there any real difference? Doesn’t the Snyder decision encourage a ‘wink and a nod’ bribery?
Snyder accepted $13,000. What if the amount was $130,000? What if the amount was $1,300,000? Does the amount of the ‘tip’ make a difference?
For decades Paul Powell and his shoebox were a symbol of the corrupt public official who is ‘on the take’. Now the Supreme Court tells us ‘it wasn’t a bribe… it was a gratuity’!
Sources
https://sangamoncountyhistory.org/wp/paul-powell-shoebox-scandal/
https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2024/06/supreme-court-rules-bribery-law-doesnt-criminalize-gratuities/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/27/supreme-court-bribes-gratuities-snyder-kavanaugh
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/justice-jackson-dissent-supreme-court-grifters-rcna159828
https://newjerseyglobe.com/donald-scarinci/scarinci-u-s-supreme-court-distinguishes-between-a-bribe-and-a-gratuity/
Thanks and a tip of the hat to Bureau of Engraving and Printing for the image.
