DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the Public Corruption Working Group (September 1993)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the Public Corruption Working Group (September 1993) REPORT OF THE PUBLIC CORRUPTION WORKING GROUP Vince Ventimiglia Pam Rigby Elizabeth Atwater Kathryn Rosieh Amy Lecocq Jon Sands Liz Phillips Kirsten Swisher September 8, 1993 / TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iV I. SCOPE OF THE WORKING GROUP AND REPORT l II. SCOPE OF THE PUBLIC CORRUPTION GUIDELINES AND STATUTES l A. Public Corruption Guidelines 1 B. Amendments to Guidelines 4 l. Amendments to Sections 2C1.1 and 2C1.2 4 2. Addition of Section ZCLT . 5 C. Public Cormption Statutes 5 D. Legislative History 8 E; Proportionality of Punishment Relative to Guidelines for Bribery, Extortion, and Gratuity Involving Other than Public Officials 8 F. Proportionality of Punishment Relative to Statutory Maximum 9 G. Pending Legislation . 10 'III. COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY DEFINITIONS 10 A Bribery and Gratuity ll l. Specific Intent ll 2. 12 B. Extortion by Threat of Force and Extortion Under Color of Official Righlz I. Primary Distinction Between the Two Extortions: Private Versus ' Public Actor 12 2. Elements of Extortion Under Color of OfEcia.1 Right 13 a. Solicitation of Payment . 13 b. - 14 c. Mgg5,&e,a 14 C. Bllortion and Extortion Under Color of Official Right as Crimes of Violence l5 D. 'FBe"McNa.l1y Fix" - Application of Generic Fraud Statutes to Public Corruption Offenses 15 IV. EXPERT ASSISTANCE, PUBLIC COMMENT, HOTLINE CALLS, ' LITERATURE REVIEW 17 A. Expert Assistance 17 Page i PUBLIC CORRUPTION REPORT - l. Department of Justice ; . 17 2. Practitioners' Advisory Group . .. lb 3. Other Defense Bar Practitioners 18 4. U.S. Probation Officer Advisory Group lg 5. Training Staff ; 19 1 . B. Public Comment . .. 20 C. Attorney and TAS Hotline Calls 20 l. Primary Issues in Section 2C1.1 21. 2. Additional Issues in Section 2C1.1 . 22 - 3. Issues in Sections 2C1.2 2C1.7 . 22 D. Literature Review 22 V. CASE LAW REVIEW 23 A. The Determination of Value . 24 B. Application of High-Level Official Adjustment !. 25 C. Determination of Appropriate Guideline . 26 D. Review of Depanures 27 VI. MONITORING DATA 28 A Data"source: The Public Corruption File (1993) > ; 28 B. Defendant and Offense Data . 28 l. Criminal History Category 29 2. Race 30 3. Gender 3 I 4. Citizenship 3 l 5. Education . 34 6. District Analysis 1 35 7. Plea and Trial Rates . 36 C. Guideline Application Data 37 l. Specific Offense Characteristic 37 a. Section ZCl.1 (Bribery) 37 b. A Section 2C1.2 (Gratuity) " 37 . 2. Total Offense Levels 7 38 3i Sentence Medians and Distributions 39 £ Departures 40 5 - Departures by District 42 6. Reasons for Non-substantial-Assistance Departure 43 7. Substantial Assistance Departure Rates Within Specific Conspiracies 8. Comparison of Offense Levels and Sentences Imposed Under Past Practice and Under the Guidelines 44 a. Comparison of Offense Levels 44 9. Fines and Restitution 45 Page ii PUBLIC CORRUPTION REPORT VII. CASE ; . FILE REVIEW . 46 A. Frequency Data 46 B. Multiple Bribes, Extortions, or Gratuities 48 - C. Detennination of Value 49 D. Application of 8-Level High-Level Official Adjustment 49 E.' Conduct in Cases Under Sections 2C1.3, 2C1.4, 2C1.5, 2C1.6, 2C1.7 50 F. Use of Other Guidelines in Connection with Public Comiption Offenses 51 - l. "Non public Corruption Guideline High" Cases 52 2. "Guideline Pass" Cases 52 G. Application of Section 381.3 (Abuse of Position of Tn1st) 53 H. Additional Case File Data Runs 54 Page iii PUBLIC CORRUPTION REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / Public corruption oEenses comprise a relatively small portion of the cases sentenced under the federal sentencing guidelines over the last two and a half years. During this time period, over 600 cases involved the public corruption guidelines at Chapter Two, Part C. The vast majority of these cases are covered by 52Cl.l ((Offering, Giving, Soliciting, or Receiving a Bribe; Extortion Under Color of Official Right), with a sizable number also covered by €2C1.2 (Offering, Giving, Soliciting, or Receiving a Gratuity). (See section lI-A of the report.) A substantial number of public corruption cases, primarily prison contraband, dmg, and fraud cases are sentenced using other guidelines. (See section VII-F.) This modest representation in numbers, however, belies a high-profile nature of public comiption offenses. Public corruption defendants are often powerful, well-known public officials holding high-level or elected office. Recent defendants include officials from every level of govemment, in every branch of govemment federal, state, and local including the United States Congress, the federal judiciary, the Pentagon, state govemors and their staff, several statelegislatures, state judges. mayors and aldermen, sheriffs and chiefs of police. In addition, public corruption offenses commonly involve bribes paid to IRS agents to reduce tax liability; bribes to secure immigration documents, prison contraband cases, and procurement and contract-related bribes and gratuities. (See Appendix IX.) Public comiption defendants are generally White (45%), male (85%), American (76%), well-educated (54% completed college or received a graduate degree) first offenders (91% are criminal history category 1), who plead guilty (85 %) to their public corruption charges. A higher proportion of public corruption defendants are Asian (17% compared with less than 3% for all MONFY92 defendants) and a lower proportion are Hispanic (9% compared with 23%); and public corruption defendants have lower criminal histories and higher levels of education than the general MONFY92 defendant. Otherwise, these defendants generally match the characteristics of the typical MONFY92 defendant. (See section VI-B.) Public corruption defendants have a median total offense level 14 and a median - sentence of 6 months. However, a significant number of public con uption defendants in multiple count cases or who are cross referenced to other guidelines receive substantially higher senten~ (median of 18 "months). One-third of defendants receive probation. (See section - ~.) Upward and downward departure rates (l% and 6%, respectively) for public corruption defendants are consistent with overall guidelines. However, the substantial assistance departure rate is substantially higher (25% compared with 15%), and this contributes to the relatively low median sentence and the high proportion of probationers (indeed, 60% of 55K1.1 cases receive probation). The majority of substantial assistance departures, however, arise in a small number of districts. (See section VI-C.) Page iv PUBLIC CORRUPTION REPORT Comment from public corruption experts and criminal justice practitioners, and a review of literature, hotline calls, and case law revealed a number of concems regarding application of the public corruption guidelines. (See sections IV and V.) A primary issue raised by all sources centers on the distinctions between the offenses of bribery, gratuity, extortion under color of official right, extortion, and other public con-uption offenses. Not only are theelements of the offenses similar (gg, gratuity and bribery); in some statutes the key elementslare subjective and not easily "detem1inable (9,9, the requirement of a corrupt purpose for bribery under 18 U.S.C. 5 201(6)). Moreover, the definitions for similar offenses often vary among statutes (see, gag, bribery under 18 U.S.C. {$5 201(b) and 666). (See section III.) Related to this issue is the infrequent use of 552C1.3 through .ZC 1.7, some of which offenses may be comparable in nature arid may merit consolidation. (See section VII-E.) A secondary issue involves the - definition of an "official holding a high level decision-making or sensitive position." Concerns have been raised regarding the difficulties involved with applying this rather subjective adjustment (the adjustment is applied to some - offenses involving line INS agents and not to certain cases involving high-level federal procurement officials) and regarding the extent of the adjustment (9,3,, * the 8-level adjustment is applied similarly to lower-level, elected, local officials and the highest-level official). This adjustment was applied in approximately 15 percent of the €52CLl and 2C1.2 cases. (See section VII-D.) Another concem with application is the determination of the value of the payment for purposes of the value table adjustment. Concems have been raised regarding determination of value in some complex cases or cases where some facts are obscure (99,, procurement or contract cases) or where the benefit is not readily determinable leg., INS document cases). Other concems have focused on the ,complexity of or ambiguity in the commentarys definition of the relevant tem1s. Additional concems have arisen over application of the adjustment for cases involving multiple bribes or gratuities. At least one of these two adjustments were applied in 83 percent of the public corruption cases. (See sections VII-B and VIIAC.)- > A finalissue surrounds the use of departures on grounds of collateral consequences (£3,, debarment, loss of official position, vulnerability in prison) and cultural predkposition (£3,, to offer a gratuity for services rendered). (See section V-D.) Num~ *additional; - relatively limited and technicalchanges have been identified as possibly mGidng further consideration by the Commission. The Working Group will continue the ongoing research projects described in this report. At the Commissions direction, the Working Group will identify issues raised by this report and will suggest, for further consideration by the Commission, possiblesteps that can be taken to address those issues. Page
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Louisiana Political Corruption-2018
    Defending Political Corruption and Abuse of Power Prosecutions in Louisiana Typical Types of Federal Prosecutions of Public Officials • 18 U.S.C. § 201- Public Bribery • 18 U.S.C. § 666- Theft or Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving FeDeral FunDs • 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343- Mail and Wire fraud (honest services frauD) • 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242- Deprivation of Rights anD Conspiracy Against Rights 18 U.S.C. 201- Public Bribery • Offering or promising something of value to a “public official,” or • A “public official” demanding, seeking, receiving, or accepting something of value • Corruptly with the intent to influence or be influenced in the performance of an “official act” (ie. bribery) • Or as a reward for an official act already done, or which is promised to be done in the future (ie. a ”gratuity”) 18 U.S.C. 201 • Who is a “public official”? • Per § 201(a)(1), “The term public official means Member of Congress, Delegate, or ResiDent Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualifieD, or an officer or employee of or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency, or branch of Government thereof, incluDing the District of Columbia, in any official function, unDer or by authority of any such Department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror.” • IncluDes any feDeral employee or anyone who holds ”a position of public trust with official federal responsibilities” and who possesses “some degree of official responsibility for carrying out a federal program or policy.” Dixson v. UniteD States, 465 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Edwin Meese Papers, 1941-1991
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt358035d1 Online items available Inventory of the Edwin Meese papers, 1941-1991 Finding aid prepared by Aparna Mukherjee, revised by Hoover Institution Library and Archives Staff and Beth Goder Hoover Institution Library and Archives © 1991, 2013 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6003 [email protected] URL: http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives Inventory of the Edwin Meese 91005 1 papers, 1941-1991 Title: Edwin Meese papers Date (inclusive): 1941-1991 Collection Number: 91005 Contributing Institution: Hoover Institution Library and Archives Language of Material: English Physical Description: 772 manuscript boxes, 2 oversize boxes, 1 envelope, 5 sound cassettes, 2 motion picture film reels(325.0 Linear Feet) Abstract: Speeches, correspondence, memoranda, reports, schedules, press releases, legal documents, printed matter, photographs, and sound recordings related to California politics and administration of the California state government during the governorship of Ronald Reagan; and to American domestic policy, Republican Party politics, and federal administration of justice during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Digital copies of select records also available at https://digitalcollections.hoover.org. Creator: Meese, Edwin Hoover Institution Library & Archives Access The collection is open for research; materials must be requested at least two business days in advance of intended use. Publication Rights For copyright status, please contact the Hoover Institution Library & Archives. Acquisition Information Materials were acquired by the Hoover Institution Library & Archives in 1991, with increments received in subsequent years. Preferred Citation [Identification of item], Edwin Meese papers, [Box no., Folder no. or title], Hoover Institution Library & Archives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Calculus of Public Corruption Cases: Hidden Decisions in Investigations and Prosecutions
    Article The Calculus of Public Corruption Cases: Journal of Criminal Justice and Law: Official Journal of the Law and Public Policy Section Hidden Decisions in Investigations and of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 21‐36 (2019) Prosecutions ©University of Houston‐Downtown Kristine Artello and Jay S. Albanese I Abstract Acts of public corruption can undermine the rule of law and the legitimacy of the state. Holding public officials to the rule of law through the threat of prosecution is a crucial mechanism to give the law meaning in practice. In the United States, nearly all prosecutions for public corruption occur at the federal level, although many defendants in these cases are officials at the state and local levels of government. When corruption cases are brought, they usually result in a conviction via a guilty plea. However, making these cases is difficult, with only about a third of investigations resulting in actual criminal prosecutions, an outcome much different from those seen in white collar or organized crime cases. In this study, we seek to elicit the decision‐making processes that occur in corruption investigation and prosecution. On the basis of 40 interviews with former investigators and former prosecutors, it has been found that experience, access, resources, and institutional barriers are all challenges to successful investigations. At the prosecution stage, prosecutors face a somewhat different set of barriers, including implied legitimacy concerns, thresholds, and potential long‐term repercussions. Implications of these findings for policy and resources are discussed. Keywords Corruption, investigation, prosecution, decision making ___________________________________________________________________________ I L.
    [Show full text]
  • Guarding the Public Interest
    NYSBA WINTER 2011 | Vol. 13 | No. 2 Government, Law and Policy Journal A Publication of the New York State Bar Association Committee on Attorneys in Public Service, produced in cooperation with the Government Law Center at Albany Law School TThehe OOversightversight FFunction:unction: GGuardinguarding tthehe PPublicublic IInterestnterest • IInsurancensurance RRegulationegulation • IInspectorsnspectors GGeneraleneral iinn NNewew YYorkork MMunicipalitiesunicipalities • NNewew YYorkork CCityity DDepartmentepartment ooff IInvestigationnvestigation • EEthicsthics LLawsaws iinn NNewew YYorkork SStatetate • AAnn IInternationalnternational TTraderade ““Watchdog”Watchdog” • PPrivaterivate IIncentivesncentives • FFalsealse CClaimslaims AActscts • GGovernmentovernment IIntegrityntegrity • CCorruptionorruption PPreventionrevention aandnd GGovernmentovernment EEfficiencyfficiency NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION The Committee on Attorneys in Public Service 2012 Annual Meeting Educational Programs and Awards for Excellence in Public Service Tuesday, January 24, 2012 Hilton New York Sutton Parlor North, 2nd fl oor, 1335 Avenue of the Americas (53rd-54th Streets) New York, NY Supreme Court Update (9:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.) This session will look back at the 2010-2011 term, the Justices, highlight the biggest decisions of the term and look ahead to the upcoming 2011-2012 term. Speakers: William D. Araiza, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Jason Mazzone, Gerald Baylin Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School New York Ethics Reform – Version 2.0 (2:00 p.m. –
    [Show full text]
  • The Dangerous Breadth of the Hobbs Act and Other Corruption Statutes, The, 87 Notre Dame L
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 87 | Issue 1 Article 8 11-1-2011 Hobbs Leviathan: The aD ngerous Breadth of the Hobbs Act and Other Corruption Statutes, The John S. Gawey Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Recommended Citation John S. Gawey, Hobbs Leviathan: The Dangerous Breadth of the Hobbs Act and Other Corruption Statutes, The, 87 Notre Dame L. Rev. 383 (2013). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol87/iss1/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES THE HOBBS LEVIATHAN: THE DANGEROUS BREADTH OF THE HOBBS ACT AND OTHER CORRUPTION STATUTES John S. Gawey* "[T]he more corrupt the State, the greater the number of its laws."' BACKGROUND On March 2, 1942 the Supreme Court infamously upheld the Sec- ond Circuit's reversals of extortion convictions for the Local 807 branch of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in United States v. Local 807 InternationalBrotherhood of Teamsters.2 For years, Local 807 routinely stopped out-of-state non-union trucks carrying large quanti- ties of merchandise as they entered New York City and demanded, sometimes violently,3 that the drivers pay regular union-fees and per- * Candidate for Juris Doctor, Notre Dame Law School, 2012; B.A., Letters, University of Oklahoma, 2009. Many thanks to Professor G. Robert Blakey for his advice and encouragement during the planning stages of this Note, the staff of the Notre Dame Law Review for their work during the editing process, and finally to my parents Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States  ROBERT F
    No. 15-474 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent. _____________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LAW PROFESSORS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER William W. Taylor, III ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M Street, N.W. Ste. 1000 Washington, DC 20036-5802 T: (202) 778-1800 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................. 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT......................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................ 3 I. The Fourth Circuit’s Holding Conflicts with This Court’s Jurisprudence in Skilling and Citizens United......................... 3 II. The Fourth Circuit’s Opinion Is Squarely At Odds with Other Circuits’ Precedent. ...................................................... 7 III. The Fourth Circuit’s Opinion Will Significantly Impact Prosecutions and Representative Democracy Across the Country. ....................................................... 13 CONCLUSION....................................................... 15 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) ............................................ 4, 5 McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) .............................................. 4, 5 McCormick v. United
    [Show full text]
  • Public Integrity Section (PIN) REPORT to CONGRESS on THE
    REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION FOR 1995 Public Integrity Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice Submitted Pursuant to Section 603 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION FOR 1995 qJ J't ' Public Integrity Section CriminI Division U.S. Department of Justice Submitted Pursuant to Section 529 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 WFRODUCTION This Report to the Congress, prepared as required by Section 529 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, details the activities and operations of the Public Integrity Section and provides statistics concerning the nationwide effort against corruption for calendar year 1995. The Public Integrity Section was established in 1976. The Section was given the responsibility for overseeing the federal effort to combat corruption through the prosecution of elected and appointed public officials at all levels of government. The Section is also responsible for supervising the handling of investigations and prosecutions of election crimes. Its attorneys prosecute selected cases against federal, state, and local officials, and are available as a source of advice and expertise to prosecutors and investigators. The Public Integrity Section also supervises the administration of the Independent Counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act. In addition, the Section serves as the Justice Department's center for the handling of issues that may arise from time to time regarding public corruption investigations and prosecutions. The Section maintains a staff of approximately 25 to 30 attorneys including experts in election law, the laws prohibiting conflicts of interest and bribery, the Independent Counsel provisions, and the statutes providing federal jurisdiction over corruption at the state and local levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond 1984: Undercover in America–Serpico to Abscam Robert Blecker New York Law School, [email protected]
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Articles & Chapters 1984 Beyond 1984: Undercover in America–Serpico to Abscam Robert Blecker New York Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation 28 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 823 (1983-1984) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. BEYOND 1984: UNDERCOVER IN AMERICA- SERPICO TO ABSCAM ROBERT I. BLECKER PART ONE PROLOGUE ................................................. 824 SERPICO To ARCHER ........................................ 840 The Archer Trial-United States v. Sherman: Subjective versus Objective Entrapment-Judge Friendly and Federal Jurisdiction-United States v. Russell-Archer reversed-A Second Try-The New York State Archer Case-Hampton v. United States: The Government on Both Sides-Archer's Conviction Affirmed: The Technique Vindicated. ABsc m ................................................... 872 The Undercover Background-Guccione and Williams-The Coaching Incident-Meyers' Payoff-Kelly-Schwartz and Jannotti. TRIALS AND HEARINGS ...................................... 899 United States v. Jannotti: Due Process-Congressional Hearings-The Archer Stain-United States v. Meyers-United States v. Williams-A Linguistic Probe of Abscam-Jannotti on Appeal: Entrapment and Due Process-United
    [Show full text]
  • List of Articles
    List of Articles A Asbestos Boesky, Ivan A. H. Robins Asia Boland Amendment AAMCO AT&T Bond Fraud ABSCAM Australia Boycott Accounting Fraud Automobile Braithwaite, John Adelphia Communications Brazil Advance Fee Scam B Breast Implants Advertising Fraud Bad Checks Bre-X Africa Bait-and-Switch Bribery Age Discrimination Bakker, Jim and Tammy Brown Lung Agnew, Spiro T. Banco Ambrosiano Buffalo Creek Air Pollution Bank Fraud Bush, George H. W. Allied Chemical Bank of Credit and Commerce Bush, George W. Allied Irish Banks International Butcher Brothers American Civil War Bank Secrecy Act American Cyanamid Banker’s Trust C American Hospital Supply Bankruptcy Fraud Campaign Finance American Motors Barings Bank Canada American Revolution BASF Canadian Mining Scandals Ancient Mercantile Crime Baycol Capitalism Anderson, Jack Beech Aircraft Capone, Alphonse Anheuser-Busch Beech-Nut Nutrition Caribbean Islands Antitrust Bendectin Carl Karcher Enterprises Arab Nations Bendix Corporation Carnegie, Andrew Arbitrage Benson, Michael L. Carson, Rachel Archer Daniels Midland Better Business Bureaus Carter, James E. Argentina B. F. Goodrich Caveat Emptor Art Fraud Bid Rigging Celler-Kefauver Act Arthur Andersen Board of Directors Cendant xxv xxvi List of Articles Centennial Savings and Loan Cressey, Donald Federal Trade Commission Act Center for Science in the Public Crime Seriousness Felony Interest Criminal Facilitation Fertility Fraud Central America Critical Theory Fiduciary Fraud Challenger Disaster Cuba Film Recovery Systems Charity Fraud Cullen, Francis T. Financial Accounting Standards Check Kiting Currency Fraud Board Chem-Bio Cyberstalking Financial Crime Chevron Kingpin Statute China D Firestone Tires Cigarette Advertising Daisy Chains Fisher-Price Civil Forfeiture Daiwa Bank Fisse, Brent Class-Action Lawsuits Dalkon Shield Flaming Ferraris Clayton Antitrust Act Day Fines Food and Drug Administration Clean Air Act Debt Restructuring Fraud Ford Pinto Clean Water Act Defective Products Ford, Gerald R.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Integrity Section (PIN) REPORT TO
    REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION FOR 1981 Public Integrity Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice Submitted Pursuant to Section 603 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 I I, I I I. I I REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE ACTIVITIES D OPERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION I FOR 1981 I I I I I Public Integrity Section Submitted Pursuant Criminal Division to Section 529 of the ce E1h1cs in Government April, 1982 Act of 1978 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. Operations of the Public Integrity Section 1. A. Operational Responsibilities 1 B. Special Prosecutor Matters 3 C. Technical Assistance 3 D. 198]. Special Initiatives 5 PART II. Prosecutions and Indictments in 1981 6 A. Corruption and Official Misconduct 7 at the Federal Level B. Corruption at the State and Local Levels 8 C. Election Crimes 9 PART III. Federal Prosecutions of Corrupt Public 11 Officials 1970 - 1981 A. Significant Public Corruption 12 Cases Nationwide B. Statistical Tables 18 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS Section 529 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires the Attorney General to "report to Congress on the activities and operations" of the Public Integrity Section. This Report, the fourth submitted pursuant to the Act, covers calendar year 1981. Part I of this Report describes the present operations and functions of the Public Integrity Section, highlighting the major activities of 1981, and Part II details the cases handled by the Section during 1981. Part III presents data on the national effort to combat public corruption during 1981, based on the Section's annual survey of United States Attorneys.
    [Show full text]
  • Enforcement of Campaign Finance Rules: a System in Search of Reform
    The Enforcement of Campaign Finance Rules: A System in Search of Reform Kenneth A. Grosst In the wake of the savings and loan crisis, the so-called "Keating Five" scandal, and increasing disillusionment with the electoral system, campaign finance reform is once again an issue of major national concern. As has often occurred in the past,' Congress appears poised to enact major campaign reform legislation as a response to these latest political scandals. Indeed, the United States Senate passed a campaign finance reform bill in May of this year,2 and the House of Representatives is currently considering campaign finance reform legislation.' While there have been many proposals to make substantive changes to the campaign finance laws, historically, these proposals have overlooked the need to improve procedures for enforcement of these laws. If this round of reforms is to be effective, particular attention must be devoted to the enforcement provisions in light of the critical inadequacies of the current enforcement scheme. The current enforcement mechanism is flawed in three fundamental ways. First, individuals and campaigns accused of Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)4 violations do not enjoy many of the due process protections available to the accused in other administrative contexts. Second, the statutory enforce- ment scheme under the FECA constrains the ability of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to adequately deter FECA violations-a daunting task in the face of entities that aggressively seek creative ways to evade the laws. Finally, despite the existence of a number of criminal statutes prohibiting elected officials from accepting campaign contributions for improper purposes, the criminal law has been of limited value in regulating campaign finance t Kenneth A.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Report on Voter Fraud and Testified As a Fact Witness in ACORN, Et Al
    EXPERT REPORT North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Case No.: 1:13-cv-00658-TDS-JEP (D. N.C.) Judge Thomas D. Schroeder Magistrate Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake February 12, 2015 LORRAINE C. MINNITE, Ph.D. EXPERT REPORT OF LORRAINE C. MINNITE, PH.D TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Summary of Opinions ......................................................................................................... 1 II. Background & Qualifications ............................................................................................. 1 III. Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 3 A. Brief History of Voting Restrictions ....................................................................... 3 B. Defining “Voter Fraud” .......................................................................................... 6 C. Analysis of Voter Fraud Nationally ........................................................................ 8 D. Examination of Voter Fraud in North Carolina Prior to the Enactment of HB 589/S.L. 2013-381 ................................................................................................ 12 E. The Legislative History to H.B. 589/S.L. 2013-381 ............................................. 17 F. Public Perception of Voter Fraud ......................................................................... 18 G. Analysis of Allegations of Voter Fraud in North
    [Show full text]