Constitutional Right to Accept Bribes?

This Washington Post article highlights the legal strategy of recently indicted GOP Senator Ted Stevens. Stevens was indicted for filing false financial disclosure forms to the Senate from 2001 through 2006. Stevens apparently did not disclose gifts totaling $250,000 from an oil services company in his home state of Alaska.

The Senator's attorneys have filed to have the case dismissed on the grounds that neither the courts or the justice department have the jurisdiction to enforce Senate rules.  On it's face, to someone who has never studied the law, this seems to be a reasonable assertion. I don't know the relevant law or the Senate rules well enough to comment on the how big a pile of crap the argument is. But based on their second assertion I'm inclined to think it's a rather large pile.

I understand the value of exempting legislators from prosecution for things that are said and done in the legislative process. But it seems to me that Stevens is asserting that accepting a quarter of a million dollars in undisclosed gifts from a home state company involved his "legislative actions, votes and decisions." In other words, the bribes he took were part of his legislative decision making process. And because these bribes were part of the legislative process, he should not be subject to prosecution for accepting them.

I bet almost every member of congress is secretly hoping he can pull this one off.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 07:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment