[ad_1]
Former New York State Lieutenant Governor Brian Benjamin
Photo:
BRENDAN MCDERMID/REUTERS
The legal line between political corruption and constituent service can sometimes seem blurry, but a federal judge ruled Monday that prosecutors failed to prove former New York Lt. Gov.
Brian Benjamin
crossed it by rewarding a campaign contributor.
Mr. Benjamin was indicted in April by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District in New York for allegedly soliciting and receiving campaign contributions from New York real-estate developer
Gerald Migdol
in exchange for earmarking $50,000 in state funds to his Harlem nonprofit. The indictment’s details were ugly enough that Mr. Benjamin resigned.
In dismissing the charges, however, federal Judge
J. Paul Oetken
said the indictment “fails to allege an explicit quid pro quo, which is an essential element of the bribery and honest services wire fraud charges.” The judge cited the Supreme Court’s McCormick (1991) precedent, which set the legal standard for quid pro quo prosecutions involving campaign contributions.
“Serving constituents and supporting legislation that will benefit the district and individuals and groups therein is the everyday business of a legislator,” the Court held. “To hold that legislators commit the federal crime of extortion when they act for the benefit of constituents . . . shortly before or after campaign contributions are solicited and received” isn’t a criminal offense.
According to the indictment, Mr. Benjamin asked Mr. Migdol to help bundle small-dollar campaign contributions. After the developer demurred, Mr. Benjamin replied: “Let me see what I can do.” A couple of months later, Mr. Benjamin informed Mr. Migdol that he planned to obtain a $50,000 grant for his nonprofit.
The indictment doesn’t state that Mr. Benjamin explicitly promised to obtain the grant funds only if he would be later repaid with campaign contributions. The standard for proving bribery in cases involving campaign contributions, Judge Oetken stressed, is more stringent than when elected officials receive personal gifts or other items of value.
He added that the government’s theory could undermine free-speech rights. “The line between quid pro quo corruption and general influence may seem vague at times, but the distinction must be respected in order to safeguard basic First Amendment rights,” he wrote, citing the Supreme Court’s 2014 McCutcheon v. FEC ruling that campaign contributions are political speech.
Justices in recent years have slapped down overreaching political prosecutions and appear poised to do so again in two cases they heard last week. Judge Oetken’s ruling puts prosecutors on notice that they need more than evidence of shady conduct and innuendo to lock up a politician.
Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
[ad_2]
Source link
(This article is generated through the syndicated feeds, Financetin doesn’t own any part of this article)
