(l) to influence any official act or any act within the official responsibility of such employee or member of the judiciary or person who has been selected to be such employee or member of the judiciary, or
(2) to influence such an employee or member of the judiciary or person who has been selected to be such an employee or member of the judiciary, to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud on the commonwealth or a state, county or municipal agency, or
(3) to induce such an employee or member of the judiciary or person who has been selected to be such an employee or member of the judiciary to do or omit to do any act in violation of his lawful duty; or
(b) Whoever, being a state, county or municipal employee or a member of the judiciary or a person selected to be such an employee or member of the judiciary, directly or indirectly, corruptly asks, demands, exacts, solicits, seeks, accepts, receives or agrees to receive anything of value for himself or for any other person or entity, in return for
(l) being influenced in his performance of any official act or any act within his official responsibility, or
(2) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the commonwealth or on a state, county or municipal agency, or
(3) being induced to do or omit to do any acts in violation of his official duty; or
(c) Whoever, directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person or any other person as a witness upon a trial, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either house or both houses of the general court, or any agency, commission or officer authorized by the laws of the commonwealth to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such witness to absent himself therefrom; or
(d) Whoever, directly, or indirectly, corruptly asks, demands, exacts, solicits, seeks, accepts, receives or agrees to receive anything of value for himself or for any other person or entity in return for influence upon the testimony under oath or affirmation of himself or any other person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing or other proceeding or in return for the absence of himself or any other person therefrom; – shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment in a jail or house of correction; and in the event of final conviction shall be incapable of holding any office of honor, trust or profit under the commonwealth or under any state, county or municipal agency.
My questions:
1. Where did Phillips get the “$50” part?
2. Where did he get the idea that Cashman and/or his wife could not be subject to penalities (see the very first paragraph, above)?
3. Where did Phillips get the “general in nature”, “not intended to benefit”, qualifications? Assuming that he got that info from State Ethics, it seems that the Ethics Commission is construing the law too narrowly. I read “influence” in the law as meaning exactly that, “influence”, play a role in, be one of a number of contributory factors that moves a legislator in a certain direction.
4. If we take Phillips’ qualifications to be the standard used by the State Ethics Commission (pushing laws that are ‘general’ and ‘not intended to benefit one specific individual’ does not constitute a violation, even if something of value-for instance, a million dollars- has been received) how could any legislator ever be prosecuted? That is, would the bill have to be called “An Act Intending to Benefit one Jay Cashman” in order to warrant penalization by Ethics? Isn’t “influence” enough?
5.Maybe the law actually is this narrow. If so, I think it’s too narrow. Why let legislators accept anything? Raise their salaries, if you have to, but don’t let them take gifts. Do we need to modify the ethics law via a citizen initiative?
6. Three of the Ethics commissioners are appointed by the Governor. Doesn’t this compromise their objectivity vis a vis the Governor? Do we need to make them elected in their own right?
Sorry for the length of the post- any formatting tips would be appreciated.
I love your posts. They are a breath of fresh air because you put some great questions out there and you resist all temptation to be preachy or argumentative. Thank you, and as EBIII says, carry on.
<
p>. . . it is all in how rhe law is interpreted by the Ethics Commission and the courts. I don’t see how the Legislature could write the law more broadly.
<
p>Every scenario cannot be scripted out. I’m not passing judgement on anyone, but there is a time when the electorate or their representative should act.
<
p>I am far from a Puritan. However, Sal seems like he is providing some level of adult leadership to the sophomoric Patrick administration.
<
p>
But I’m not sure how you could ever prove “intent” one way or the other, especially among “long-time friends”. Legally, couldn’t anyone argue the point on intent? “Well, yeah, me and that tax assessor got to talking, and we kind of hit it off, you know? So I invited him to a Red Sox game…” What I have definitely noticed is that the state ethics commission mainly involves itself in low-profile municipal scandals, which is probably a necessary function, and I’m sure they do a lot of important work. I think this flurry of attention has probably made them uncomfortable, and I anticipate, however, that they will resolve the GOP’s ethical complaints about DiMasi with an “advisory letter” (or less), and will release no information about the investigation (as their investigations are technically “confidential”). They will probably take a long time to do this, hoping that people forget they are even working on it in the meantime. This is just a guess, and is not meant to be a judgment on the agency. I don’t know if they can do much more, given the “plausible deniability” factor involved.
I have looked at the Ethics laws many times and I almost think they are too broad. They are so broad that they are unenforceable as written causing them to be interpreted more narrowly.