Quid pro no-no: When campaign contributions become a crime |
Quid pro no-no: When campaign contributions become a crime
One of the more alarming political prosecutions of the last several decades recently reached its conclusion, though most Americans have never heard of it.
The case, Sittenfeld v. U.S., should concern every corporation, trade association, advocacy group, and individual donor who seeks to advance a policy agenda by supporting candidates with lawful campaign contributions.
One of us lived through this as the defendant-appellant, even serving prison time. The other watched up-close as an expert witness with more than two decades of campaign-finance experience, shocked by the Kafka-esque miscarriage of justice that unfolded.
Sittenfeld v. U.S. featured an elaborate FBI sting operation with undercover agents, later likened in court to a “yearlong prosecutorial Truman Show.” Rather than P.G. Sittenfeld — then a Cincinnati councilman and leading mayoral candidate — demanding or receiving cash in his pocket, the alleged “bribe” was a lawful, routine, publicly disclosed campaign contribution. There was never any allegation of personal enrichment.
After Sittenfeld was already on record clearly stating his support for the redevelopment of a large, long-blighted property in the heart of downtown Cincinnati, undercover agents posing as investors backing the redevelopment made donations to Sittenfeld’s political action committee.
Sittenfeld never once agreed to any quid pro quo. In fact, in the only conversation where such an arrangement was floated by a cooperating witness, Sittenfeld — unaware he was being recorded on a wire — immediately rejected it, saying, “Nothing can be illegal … nothing can be a quid pro quo.“
Nonetheless, prosecutors plowed forward with a dangerous charging theory: Agreement on policy between donor and candidate plus campaign........