Supreme Court wipes out anti-corruption law that bars officials from taking gifts for past favors

posted in: Adventure | 0

David G. Savage | Los Angeles Times (TNS)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court Wednesday struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to take gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had previously been awarded lucrative contracts or other government benefits thanks to the efforts of the official.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.

In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for simply taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.

“The question in this case is whether [the federal law] also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities—for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos, or the like—that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority.

Kavanaugh said federal law “leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. “Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions,” Jackson said.

The ruling could have a broad impact. About 20 million local and state officials are covered by the federal anti-corruption law, including officials at hospitals and universities that receive federal funds.

Justice Department lawyers told the court that for nearly 40 years, the anti-bribery law has been understood to prohibit payments to officials that “rewarded” them for having steered contracts to the donors.

The Supreme Court justices have faced heavy criticism recently for accepting undisclosed gifts from wealthy patrons. Justice Clarence Thomas regularly took lavish vacations and private jet flights that were paid for by Texas billionaire Harlan Crow. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. took a fishing trip to Alaska in 2008 aboard a private plane owned by Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire.

The high court has long held that criminal laws restricting “illegal gratuities” to federal officials require proof that the gifts were given for a specific “official act,” not just because of the official’s position.

The Indiana mayor was charged and convicted of taking the $13,000 payment because of his role in helping his patrons win city contracts.

Congress in 1986 extended the federal bribery law to cover officials of state of local agencies that receive federal funds. The measure made it crime to “corruptly solicit or demand…or accept…anything of value of $5,000 or more…intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business or transaction.”

Related Articles

National Politics |


Supreme Court dismisses Republican suit claiming Biden officials censored social media

National Politics |


Sarah McBride poised to become the first transgender member of Congress

National Politics |


Melania Trump won’t move back into the White House if Trump wins: report

National Politics |


‘We are protesting both of them.’ Presidential debate draws activists’ ire

National Politics |


Laugh (or cringe) at these history-making moments from presidential debates

Prosecutors said James Snyder was heavily in debt and behind in paying his taxes when he became mayor of Portage, Indiana in 2012. The city needed new garbage trucks, and the mayor took over the required public bidding. He spoke regularly with two brothers who owned a local truck dealership that also had financial problems, and he designed the bidding process so that only their two new trucks would meet all of its standards. He also arranged to have the city buy an older truck that was on their lot.

Two weeks after the contracts were final, the mayor went to see the two brothers and told them of his financial troubles. They agreed to write him a check for $13,000 for undefined consulting services.

An FBI investigation led to Snyder’s indictment, his conviction and a 21-month prison sentence.

The former mayor argued that an after-the-fact gift should not be a crime, but he lost before a federal judge and the U.S. appeals court in Chicago.

The high court agreed to hear his appeal in Snyder vs. U.S. because appeals court in Boston and New Orleans had limited the law to bribery only and not gratuities that were paid later.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly limited the scope of public corruption laws and often in unanimous rulings. The common theme is that the justices concluded the prosecutions went beyond the law.

Last year, the court was unanimous in overturning the corruption convictions of two New York men who were former aides or donors to then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat. The court noted that one of the defendants convicted of taking illicit payments did not work for the state during that time.

Four years ago, the justices were unanimous in overturning the convictions of two aides to then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Cristie, a Republican, who were charged with conspiring to shut down lanes to the George Washington Bridge into New York City. The court said they were wrongly convicted of fraud because they had not sought money or property, which is a key element of a fraud charge.

In 2016, the court overturned the corruption conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican. While the governor took $175,000 in gifts from a business promoter, he took no official actions to benefit the donor, the court said.

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

En plena ola de calor, neoyorquinos que cumplan requisitos pueden solicitar subvención estatal para aire acondicionado… por ahora

posted in: News | 0

El Home Energy Assistance Program (Programa de Asistencia Energética a los Hogares o HEAP por sus siglas en inglés) ha ayudado a decenas de miles de neoyorquinos con bajos ingresos a combatir el calor. Sin embargo, expertos y defensores afirman que el programa podría dar y critican su limitado alcance.

NYC Mayor’s Public Engagement Unit

Empleados municipales de la Public Engagement Unit (Unidad de Participación Pública) de la alcaldía repartiendo volantes sobre el beneficio de asistencia para el programa HEAP en el sur del Bronx el 31 de mayo de 2024.

Este artículo se publicó originalmente en inglés el 18 de junio. Traducido por Daniel Parra. Read the English version here.

Nueva York registró el año pasado una de las temperaturas más altas jamás registradas, pero se prevé otro verano al rojo vivo para 2024: la primera ola de calor de la temporada llegó la semana pasada, según advirtieron las autoridades.

Y las ayudas para enfriar los hogares del Home Energy Assistance Program (Programa de Asistencia Energética a los Hogares o HEAP por sus siglas en inglés) ha sido clave para ayudar a decenas de miles de neoyorquinos a combatir el calor. La iniciativa, financiada con fondos federales y gestionada por la Oficina de Asistencia Temporal y Asistencia para Incapacitados (OTDA por sus siglas en inglés) del estado de Nueva York, ayuda a las personas con bajos ingresos a comprar e instalar un ventilador o un aire acondicionado por un coste de hasta $1.000 dólares.

Sin embargo, los expertos y los defensores dicen que el programa podría hacer más. Han criticado el alcance limitado del programa —los fondos se han agotado a mediados o finales de julio en los dos últimos veranos— y no concede ayudas complementarias a las facturas de servicios públicos. Además dicen que puede estar teniendo dificultades para atender las necesidades cada vez más urgentes de algunos de los más vulnerables, como las personas mayores.

Los residentes de la ciudad de Nueva York pueden ver si califican para el beneficio de asistencia de enfriamiento de HEAP aquí

Una serie de factores externos están poniendo a los adultos mayores en mayor riesgo de sufrir el inminente clima caliente, incluyendo una mayor tasa de pobreza y el aumento de las facturas de servicios públicos residenciales, según fuentes que hablaron con City Limits. En toda la ciudad de Nueva York, 68 personas murieron por estrés térmico entre 2012 y 2021, y los residentes mayores de 60 años enfrentan la tasa de mortalidad más alta.

“Los adultos mayores son el grupo demográfico más afectado por el cambio climático”, dijo Kevin J. Kiprovski, director de políticas públicas de LiveOnNY. “A nivel internacional, durante una emergencia por calor, el 90 por ciento de las personas que mueren tienen más de 65 años”.

Según OTDA, se calcula que la ayuda para comprar aire acondicionado de HEAP ha llegado a casi 67.000 hogares en los últimos cinco años. El presupuesto de este año es de unos $22 millones de dólares, frente a los $17 millones del verano pasado, cuando se beneficiaron 21.000 hogares antes de que se agotara el fondo el 14 de julio.

El programa HEAP aceptará solicitudes para este año hasta el viernes 30 de agosto, o hasta que se agoten los fondos. Los neoyorquinos deben cumplir ciertos criterios, como límites de ingresos —no ganar más de $3.035 dólares al mes por persona, a menos que reciba otras prestaciones públicas— y tener en su hogar un miembro menor de 6 años, mayor de 60 o con una enfermedad agravada por el calor, entre otros requisitos

Kim Lerner, directora del programa de divulgación de prestaciones de LiveOnNY, ha ayudado a cientos de personas mayores a solicitar ayudas para refrescarse.

“Hice una visita a domicilio a una mujer que padecía cáncer de mama y, cuando entré en su apartamento, no podía creer lo mal ventilado y caluroso que estaba”, recuerda Lerner. “No sé cómo lo soportaba. Y la única forma que tenía de conseguir un aire acondicionado era a través de HEAP”.

Lerner elogió el programa por sus mejoras a lo largo de los años, como la supresión del requisito de presentar documentación médica, que resultaba tedioso y a menudo disuadía a los solicitantes. Sin embargo, aunque HEAP ofrece ayudas para la factura de los servicios públicos de calefacción durante los fríos meses de invierno, no lo hace para el verano.

Lerner dijo que muchos de los que recibieron aires acondicionados a través del programa expresaron su temor a que se dispararan las facturas de los servicios públicos, y dijo que subvencionar el coste sería una gran ayuda para ellos.

La preocupación de sus clientes no es infundada: las facturas de los servicios públicos residenciales están aumentando debido al incremento de las temperaturas estivales y a la prevalencia de episodios de calor extremo en los últimos años. Según un informe de la Asociación Nacional de Directores de Asistencia Energética y el Centro para la Energía, la Pobreza y el Clima, mientras que en 2014 mantenerse fresco en verano costaba $476 dólares, en 2024 las previsiones se sitúan en torno a los $719 dólares. 

Y los bolsillos de algunas de las personas mayores no están a la altura de esos costes. Beth Finkel, directora estatal de AARP Nueva York, dijo que la tasa de pobreza entre las personas mayores de 65 años en el estado de Nueva York subió más del 35 por ciento en el último censo.

Jeanmarie Evelly

La ayuda estatal para aire acondicionado ofrece a los neoyorquinos que reúnan los requisitos necesarios hasta $1.000 para la compra e instalación de un aire acondicionado.

“Pagar un aire acondicionado o un ventilador y su instalación puede secar el presupuesto familiar de alguien que vive en el umbral de la pobreza o incluso un poco por encima”, explica Finkel a City Limits.

“El gobierno tiene que buscar todas las vías posibles para ayudar a la gente”, añadió Finkel, cuando se le preguntó por las limitaciones del presupuesto del programa de ayuda para comprar aire acondicionado. “Es una medida de salud preventiva asegurarse de que la gente tenga un sistema de enfriamiento”.

Los datos de la OTDA muestran que, en los últimos cinco años, la ayuda para comprar aire acondicionado supuso algo menos del dos por ciento del presupuesto del HEAP. Durante los meses más fríos del año se destina mucho más dinero a la ayuda para calefacción, aproximadamente el 75 por ciento del presupuesto total. 

La disparidad parece un planteamiento contraintuitivo, dado que hay mayores tasas de mortalidad por calor en comparación con cualquier otra causa relacionada con el clima.

“La financiación de HEAP se determina en el presupuesto federal y se distribuye a los estados a través de una fórmula”, dijo un portavoz de la OTDA a City Limits en un comunicado. “Si bien el gobierno federal no obliga a los estados a operar un programa de refrescamiento, el estado de Nueva York es uno de los varios estados que asignan anualmente una parte de sus fondos para este fin, lo que Nueva York ha hecho durante muchos años”.

Este año se ha ampliado el componente de prestaciones de emergencia de HEAP hasta finales de agosto, o hasta que se agoten los fondos, ha señalado el portavoz. Los hogares que se enfrentan a facturas de electricidad más elevadas debido al uso de aire acondicionado y otros equipos de enfriamiento, y que han recibido un aviso de terminación de su compañía de servicios públicos, pueden solicitar la ayuda de emergencia para evitar un corte o para mantener el servicio durante al menos un mes más. 

“A medida que se agrava el cambio climático vemos sin duda que el calor, y ni siquiera el calor extremo, incluso a partir de los 82 grados Fahrenheit, es cuando empezamos a ver un repunte de las muertes relacionadas con el calor entre los neoyorquinos”, dijo Victoria Sanders, directora del programa de clima y salud de NYC Environmental Justice Alliance. “Así que tenemos que ajustar nuestras prioridades a medida que cambien las realidades de nuestro mundo”.

Como resultado de la financiación limitada, HEAP anunció el cierre de las solicitudes de asistencia a mediados del verano de 2023, el 14 de julio. Lo mismo podría ocurrir este año, incluso con los recortes presupuestarios propuestos por la ciudad a los centros para personas mayores en el horizonte, muchos de los cuales se duplican como centros de enfriamiento para aquellos que lo necesitan. 

Sanders figura entre los autores de un nuevo informe de Environmental Justice Alliance en el que se esbozan recomendaciones políticas sobre las disparidades en la calidad del aire y la vulnerabilidad al calor de las comunidades de color con bajos ingresos y está de acuerdo en que la ampliación del programa de ayuda sería una importante solución a corto plazo a los efectos adversos del cambio climático.

“Una gran parte de las personas que mueren de calor lo hacen en sus propias casas, porque no pueden refrescarse”, dijo. “Así que es importante que lo tengamos para poder proteger a los residentes vulnerables de la ciudad. Y mientras tanto, vamos a seguir presionando al gobierno para que haga un mejor trabajo en la lucha contra el cambio climático a nivel sistémico.”

Para ponerse en contacto con la reportera de esta noticia, escriba a Anastasia@citylimits.org. Para ponerse en contacto con la editora, escriba a Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Supreme Court dismisses Republican suit claiming Biden officials censored social media

posted in: News | 0

David G. Savage | Los Angeles Times (TNS)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday cast aside claims that the Biden administration has been censoring conservatives by pressing social media sites to take down dangerous misinformation.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices threw out a lawsuit from state attorneys in Louisiana and Missouri, and said they had no standing to bring such claims.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The ruling throws out a broad court order issued last year by a federal judge in Louisiana and upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that threatened hundreds of Biden administration officials with a contempt citation if they “significantly encouraged” a platform to remove some content.

Social media sites did not sue or complain their rights were violated.

Instead, Republican state attorneys in Missouri and Louisiana sued alleging the right to free speech in this country was being violated by the Biden administration’s “sprawling federal censorship enterprise.” They pointed to actions by the White House as well as the FBI, the Office of the Surgeon General and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In October, in response to an appeal from Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar, the justices had put the Louisiana judge’s order on hold over dissents by Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch. “Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government,” Alito wrote at the time.

But the justices agreed to hear arguments and rule on the 1st Amendment issue raised in the case of Murthy vs. Missouri.

This term, the court has heard three major cases on social media and the 1st Amendment, all of them driven by complaints from conservatives that their speech is being censored.

The other two cases arose when Florida and Texas adopted laws that would impose fines or money damages on major social media platforms if they removed postings or content from conservatives.

Related Articles

National Politics |


Sarah McBride poised to become the first transgender member of Congress

National Politics |


Melania Trump won’t move back into the White House if Trump wins: report

National Politics |


‘We are protesting both of them.’ Presidential debate draws activists’ ire

National Politics |


Laugh (or cringe) at these history-making moments from presidential debates

National Politics |


This week’s televised debate is crucial for Biden and Trump — and for CNN as well

The case decided Wednesday began with a complaint that the social media platforms had blocked or downgraded posts on topics such as “the COVID–19 lab leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story.”

The state attorneys took their complaint to U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee in Monroe, La. He handed down an unusually far-reaching order that prohibited federal officials and agencies from “urging or encouraging” the removal of “protected speech” from social media. He described the administration’s conduct as “arguably … the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

The administration appealed to the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans, but lost. A three-judge panel said the administration “officials have engaged in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government. The harms that radiate from such conduct extend far …. It impacts every social-media user.”

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Biden and Trump are set to debate. Here’s what their past performances looked like

posted in: Politics | 0

By SEUNG MIN KIM (Associated Press)

WASHINGTON (AP) — What people remember from Joe Biden and Donald Trump’s first debate four years ago are likely the interruptions, the shouting and the “will you shut up, man?”

Then-President Trump arrived at that first matchup in Cleveland seemingly determined to steamroll Biden at every turn, leaving the Democratic candidate exasperated and moderator Chris Wallace scrambling to regain control.

Now, in 2024, many of the rules insisted on this time by Biden’s team — and agreed to by the Trump campaign — are designed to minimize the potential of a chaotic rerun. Each candidate’s microphone will be muted, except when it’s his turn to speak. There will be no studio audience to chime in with hoots and jeers.

The second and final presidential debate of 2020, held in Nashville, Tennessee, was a far more subdued event than the first, aided by a mute button and participants who were perhaps chastened by terrible reviews from the first matchup, particularly for Trump.

But if the Biden-Trump debate this Thursday in Atlanta spirals into pandemonium, consider that past was prologue.

A look back at that first Biden-Trump faceoff on Sept. 29, 2020:

The debate begins to devolve

It started out calmly enough, with a brief exchange about the Supreme Court vacancy that had opened up days before with the sudden death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But the conversation turned contentious as the men tangled over health care and Trump’s handling of COVID-19.

The sparring over the pandemic was tense enough — with Biden telling Wallace at one point, “You’re not going to be able to shut him up.” Then Biden pivoted back to the court and abortion rights, triggering yet another outburst from Trump that continued to irritate the Democrat (and likely Wallace, and perhaps the viewing public).

“The point is that the president also is opposed to Roe v. Wade,” Biden said of Trump. “That’s on the ballot as well and the court, in the court, and so that’s also at stake right now. And so the election is all —”

“You don’t know what’s on the ballot. Why is it on the ballot?” Trump interrupted. “Why is it on the ballot? It’s not on the ballot.”

Trump would continue to interject until Biden showed his first real sign of irritation with his opponent and said: “Donald, would you just be quiet for a minute?”

But Trump didn’t relent, refusing to let Wallace question him about his Obamacare replacement plan without interruptions and taunting Biden that his primary election victory over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders was “not by much” and that he “just lost the left” when he distanced himself from Sanders’ vision for health care.

“Folks,” Biden finally said, conveying his irritation to the audience, “do you have any idea what this clown’s doing?”

Biden: “Will you shut up, man?”

One clip replayed at length from the chaos in Cleveland was Biden finally snapping at Trump: “Will you shut up, man?”

Related Articles

National Politics |


Supreme Court dismisses Republican suit claiming Biden officials censored social media

National Politics |


Sarah McBride poised to become the first transgender member of Congress

National Politics |


Melania Trump won’t move back into the White House if Trump wins: report

National Politics |


‘We are protesting both of them.’ Presidential debate draws activists’ ire

National Politics |


Laugh (or cringe) at these history-making moments from presidential debates

It came during a discussion over progressive proposals to overhaul Senate procedural rules or the Supreme Court itself — topics that have been tricky for an institutionalist such as Biden. The Democrat was, as he openly admitted, refusing to answer the question.

So Trump took matters into his own hands.

“Are you going to pack the court? Are you going to pack the court?” Trump demanded as Biden tried to make a case directly to the audience. Trump muttered that Biden didn’t want to answer the question.

“Why wouldn’t you answer that question? You want to put a lot of new Supreme Court justices. Radical left,” Trump concluded.

That’s when Biden — again — lost patience. “Will you shut up, man?”

But Trump — again — wouldn’t relent, forcing Wallace to cut the segment short and move on to a different topic. Biden lamented how unproductive the discussion was.

Trump insults Biden’s intelligence

The Republican also didn’t hesitate to get personal, from attacking Biden’s sole living son, Hunter, to mocking the Democrat’s academic credentials.

It seemed like Trump had been waiting for Biden to use any derivation of the word “smart” to go after his intelligence. So when Biden warned that more Americans would die from COVID-19 unless the president got smarter in his handling of the pandemic, Trump pounced.

“Did you use the word smart?” Trump said. “So you said you went to Delaware State, but you forgot the name of your college. You didn’t go to Delaware State. You graduated either the lowest or almost the lowest in your class.”

“Don’t ever use the word smart with me,” continued Trump, who graduated from the University of Pennsylvania. “Don’t ever use that word … Because you know what? There’s nothing smart about you, Joe.”

Biden received his undergraduate degree from the University of Delaware in Newark in 1965 and enrolled shortly thereafter at Syracuse University law school. He wasn’t known for his stellar grades; at Syracuse, he graduated 76th in a class of 85.

Trump nods to the Proud Boys

It was one of Trump’s most memorable moments that didn’t involve interrupting Biden.

Wallace pushed Trump to condemn white supremacists and militia groups, particularly as the Republican president spent so much of his energy denouncing so-called “Antifa” or far-left militant groups.

Trump responded that he was willing to do so, but never explicitly condemned right-wing extremist groups by name. When goaded by Biden to condemn the Proud Boys, one of such groups on the right, Trump seemingly did the opposite.

“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by,” Trump said. Those words, and the broader exchange, left some members of the neofascist group celebrating what they saw as an implicit approval from the president.

Trump was forced into clean-up duty one day later, saying he did not know who the Proud Boys were and adding that “whoever they are, they have to stand down. Let law enforcement do their work.”

The contentious exchange about Biden’s sons

Biden has long criticized Trump’s attitude toward American troops, including his reported comments that in 2018, he did not want to visit a U.S. military cemetery in France because he thought the deceased soldiers were “suckers” and “losers.”

“The way you talk about the military, the way you talk about them being losers and being, and, and, and just being suckers,” Biden said to Trump. Speaking of his older son, Beau, a veteran who died of brain cancer, Biden continued: “My son was in Iraq. He spent a year there. He got — he got the Bronze Star. He got the Conspicuous Service Medal. He was not a loser. He was a patriot.”

Trump swung back hard, taking aim at Biden’s younger son, Hunter, instead.

“Are you talking Hunter? Are you talking about Hunter?” Trump responded, continuing: “I don’t know Beau. I know Hunter. Hunter got thrown out of the military.”

Trump then claimed that Hunter Biden was dishonorably discharged, which Biden quickly refuted. Hunter Biden was administratively discharged — which is not a dishonorable discharge — from the Navy in 2014 after testing positive for cocaine.

“My son … like a lot of people we know at home had a drug problem. He’s overtaken it,” Biden said, adding: “I’m proud of my son.”

Biden commits to not declaring victory until the election is certified, Trump does not

During the final moments of the first debate, Wallace asked both candidates whether they would commit to not declaring victory until the election had been independently certified, as well as urging their respective supporters to stay calm.

Trump declined to do so, instead saying he would encourage his supporters to go watch the polls and musing about election fraud.

Biden, in sharp contrast, responded to the same question: “Yes.”

Trump, who would go on to lose the 2020 race, never conceded the election. Just over three months after the Cleveland debate, a mob of his supporters fueled by his election lies stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.