 |
|
Blog
|
|
Welcome to the Holtzman Vogel Law Blog. We aim to keep you
up to date on important legal developments and other items of interest. On this
blog, we'll track developments in the news and changes to the rules and regulations
affecting political committees, corporate PACs, trade associations, non-profit groups
and advocacy organizations. We'll also keep you updated on the lobbying and ethics
arena. The Law Blog is designed to supplement our regular newsletter.
On behalf of the Holtzman Vogel team, I hope you find this site helpful and interesting.
And we hope you'll become a regular visitor. (If you'd like to receive our newsletter,
please click here to sign up.)
Jill Holtzman Vogel
|
Friday, December 11, 2009
Wash. Post Editorial Urges Supreme Court to Strike Down "Honest Services Fraud" Law
According to the Post's editors, "A 28-word passage in federal law makes it a crime to "deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." This is true even if the perpetrator has not directly pocketed taxpayer dollars or financially defrauded his company. The law is so vague that most people would have no idea what behavior is prohibited. . . . Criminal statutes should be clear, putting everyone on notice about which behaviors will run afoul of the law. The honest-services law fails this simple but important test and should be struck down."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
LA Times: Supreme Court critical of 'honest services fraud' law
The Los Angeles Times has this report on yesterday's arguments at the Supreme Court: "The Supreme Court gave a highly skeptical hearing Tuesday to government lawyers defending the key anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for officials to deprive the public of their 'honest services.' In recent years, prosecutors have used the law to convict politicians, lobbyists and corporate executives of fraud, even when there is no proof that they pocketed money or took a bribe. But the law appeared to be in danger of being struck down entirely -- or scaled back to cover only kickbacks and bribes. Throughout the two-hour arguments, the justices took turns suggesting that the law was too vague and open-ended and that it failed to spell out what was a crime." More from the Washington Post.
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, December 07, 2009
NY Times: Justices to Weigh Honest-Services Law
From the New York Times: "An unusual coalition of groups has come together to criticize the federal government’s increasing reliance on a statute that is commonly used but little understood: honest-services fraud. The honest-services law, on the federal books since 1988, broadly requires that public and corporate officials act in the best interests of their constituents or employers. It has become an important tool for federal prosecutors, who used it successfully against the lobbyist Jack Abramoff and many of his associates. It is an element of the cases against former Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois; the former New York State Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno; and former Gov. Donald E. Siegelman of Alabama. . . . But critics say it is used too broadly, is applied inconsistently, and too often criminalizes behavior that fails to merit the full weight of federal prosecution. The Supreme Court will hear three cases concerning the honest-services law in this term, with two coming up for oral argument on Tuesday."
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
LA Times: Supreme Court to take up anti-corruption law; Some say a ruling against the ban on 'honest services fraud' would take away one of the best weapons against public officials who use their positions to gain money, gifts or favors.
The Los Angeles Times' David Savage has this report on the December 8 oral arguments in two cases challenging the federal "honest services fraud" statute. Savage writes, "The nation's most potent law against public corruption is in danger of being scaled back or struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
At issue is a ban on "honest services fraud," often used to prosecute public officials who accept money, free tickets, or jobs for relatives when bribery cannot be proved.
Patrick M. Collins, formerly a top anti-corruption prosecutor for U.S. Atty. Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago, said that in his region, 'every major public corruption case in the last 10 years relied heavily on an 'honest services' charge.' . . . . [T]he justices agreed to hear two appeals that call for paring back the law.
In the first, Conrad Black, the jailed newspaper executive, argues that he cannot be held guilty of honest-services fraud unless it can be shown that he intended economic harm to Hollinger International Inc., the company he once headed.
In Weyhrauch vs. the United States, a former Alaska legislator says that he cannot be found guilty of fraud for failing to disclose that he had sought work with an oil services firm before he left the Legislature. Republican Bruce Weyhrauch did not get a job with the firm, but he did cast a vote in favor of the firm's position on a tax bill."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Supreme Court Will Not Hear "Honest Services Fraud" Case
The Supreme Court voted not to hear an "honest services fraud" case, Sorich v. US. In a dissent from this vote, Justice Scalia details the differing interpretations of the law's requirements in the federal circuits.
Click here to read the entire post.
|
 |