If Legislative Coalitions Require Members To Vote For The Budget In Exchange For Benefits, Is That Bribery?

Alaska state representative  David Eastman from the Mat-Su, in a commentary in today's newspaper, raises an interesting question.  He describes when legislators join the Republican controlled 'fraternity' (the majority caucus) in Juneau, they get a bunch of perks - bigger office, more staff, prime committee membership and possible committee chairs, access to better state travel money and

 "you are invited to be 'at the table' at those closed-door meetings that never take place (at least officially.)"

But all those things don't come without a string attached.

"The cost for joining the fraternity is simple: a promise to vote with the fraternity when called upon to do so, and to approve the state budget endorsed by the fraternity — no matter what's in it."

 So, a group of legislators that forms a majority caucus, sets up rules that give benefits to legislators in exchange for votes.  That's what Eastman is complaining about.

If I gave a legislator $500 for a plane trip on the condition that he vote a certain way on a particular bill, that would be clearly illegal.

Here's from the Alaska Statutes:

"Alaska Statutes.
Title 11. Criminal Law
Chapter 56. Offenses Against Public Administration
Section 100. Bribery.
previous: Chapter 56. Offenses Against Public Administration
next: Section 110. Receiving a Bribe.
AS 11.56.100. Bribery.
(a) A person commits the crime of bribery if the person confers, offers to confer, or agrees to confer a benefit upon a public servant with the intent to influence the public servant's vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision, or exercise of official discretion.
(b) In a prosecution under this section, it is not a defense that the person sought to be influenced was not qualified to act in the desired way, whether because that person had not assumed office, lacked jurisdiction, or for any other reason.
(c) Bribery is a class B felony."  [emphasis added]

Clearly, when someone joins a Republican majority coalition, as Easton has described it, that coalition "confers, offers to confer, or agrees to confer a benefit upon a public servant with the intent to influence the public servant's vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision, or exercise of official discretion."


The benefits are all those things Easton describes:

• larger office
• better committee assignments including chairs
• more staff
• better travel benefits
• and access to private meetings where key decisions are made

In exchange, the legislator must vote as the coalition dictates on key bills including the budget.  As he describes it, their exercise of official discretion is removed.


I recall when  Rep. Lora Reinbold was kicked out of the Republican coalition in 2015, she was stripped of her committee assignments and her office etc.  She was kicked out because she didn't vote for the budget the coalition had put together.  I wrote a long post then (March 30, 2015) exploring the logic and reasoning and ethics of such rules.  But I didn't talk about it being a form of bribery.  But the way Easton talks about, it certainly seems to fit.


Here's a bit of what I wrote then.  The first quote confirms Easton's allegation.

"ADN Saturday March 28, 2015:

“All I can say is, she knew what she was doing, she knew what the rules were, and chose to go the way she did. There are consequences,” [House Speaker Mike Chenault] said."

Then I called my legislator's office and was told that wasn't how the Minority (Democratic) caucus worked.  They had no rules.  He suggested I call someone from the Majority (Republican) caucus.

"I check with speaker Chenault's office. 
A male staffer answered.  I explained my query and asked where I could get a copy of the rules.   
They're unwritten rules, he told me, that the caucus has.  There is no written set of rules.  They're understood.  The main one is to vote for the budget.  If you don't, things can happen.   I asked how anyone finds out about the rules?   They're told in the caucus he said."

The 2015 post got into questions about written and unwritten rules.  I wondered whether the fact that rules were unwritten suggested they knew there was something shady about them.  But on further reflection, spurred on by Rep. Eastman, I think it's a pretty clear case of bribery.

Now, I'm also sure that the Republicans have somewhere exempted internal wrangling from being interpreted as bribery.  And it's clear that log-rolling and 'if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" are long accepted practices in legislatures.  

Log-rolling is part of the process of getting work done in legislative bodies made up of many individuals with different agendas.  It's how you compromise.  The legislator may get a bill he badly wants passed, but he's not getting personal benefits.  But what Eastman so clearly describes is an attempt by party leaders to force their members to bow to their will in exchange for a bunch of benefits.

I'll try to check on if and where this practice is exempted from the Statute on bribery.  If I find out, I'll post again with some options for how one could end the exemptions.  If I can't find such exemptions, I think it would be time to prosecute the leaders of the Republican coalitions for bribery.

Kott Trial - The Bribery Charge

Bribery

• First, the defendant was an elected official of the State of Alaska;
• This is not at issue

• Second, during the period between in or about September 2005 and August 30, 2006 the defendant corruptly solicited or demanded for the benefit of any person, or accepted or agreed to accept from a person, something of value, with all of you agreeing on what that thing was, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with a business, transaction, or series of transactions of the State of Alaska;
• This is very similar to the extortion charge. As I understand it, we have the same four items - the $7,993 check for flooring work that was used to pay for Peter Kott Jr.; The $1000 cash; the political polls; and the future lobbying job. And the jury has to believe that these were all in exchange for Kott's work in promoting their bills in the legislature. It doesn't matter whether the parts of the agreement are fulfilled, just that they agreed and understood this was the deal. So, even though he didn't get the lobbying job, that shouldn't matter. Even though he wasn't able to keep the ppt bill at 20/20, he said he would and he tried. Like with the extortion charge, if the jury has trouble with this, Kott's in good shape.

• Third, the business, transaction, or series of transactions involved something of value of $5,000 or more; and
• The poll and the $1000 in cash together are only $3500. But the job and the $7,993 check each would be over $5,000. All four also qualifies.
  

• Fourth, the State of Alaska received benefits in excess of $10,000 in calendar year 2006, pursuant to a federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of federal assistance.
  
• This just means that the State of Alaska gets more than $10,000 in money from the federal government. Clearly this is the case.
  

Again, this one seems pretty clear. Of course, you never know what a jury will think.