In an easy-to-miss two-line order in its shadow docket, the US Supreme Court just vacated the corruption conviction of a local official, raising a question: Will the kind of influence peddling that’s now ubiquitous in politics eventually end up being explicitly deemed unprosecutable simply because it’s so ubiquitous?
Cincinnati Democratic councilperson P. G. Sittenfeld had been convicted of allegedly accepting tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of campaign contributions in exchange for his support for a local development project. Law enforcement had Sittenfeld on tape promising an undercover FBI agent, “I can deliver the votes,” and Sittenfeld was charged by a Trump-appointed career prosecutor, David DeVillers, who was also prosecuting top Republicans in Ohio and cast such cases as important deterrents against corruption:
I hope that these investigations and prosecutions coming to light really kind of help the next generation of politicians and public servants. And that, you know, the idea that you can accept money with a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” promise to do something that in your capacity as a politician or as a public servant for money — whether it’s going into pockets or whether it’s going into your campaign fund — if you’re making that promise in return for it, that’s a federal crime, always has been. I think that that culture of people coming into service thinking, “Oh, this is the way it’s supposed to be,” hopefully now realize that it’s not.
But after Sittenfeld was convicted, President Donald Trump ignored DeVillers’s deterrent argument and pardoned Sittenfeld in a deal that reportedly circumvented the normal pardon process and that was opposed by the Biden-appointed US attorney who oversaw much of the case.
The pardon, though, wasn’t enough for Sittenfeld. He still wanted his conviction formally expunged. And so last year, he appealed his conviction to the Roberts Court, which has been overturning…
Auteur: David Sirota
