A trivial, attenuated financial benefit could not lead to this violation because the public official must still act knowingly and with fraudulent intent to receive the benefit, and they must do so in violation of existing law. For example, if State ethics rules do not require disclosure of financial interests below a certain threshold, then undisclosed self-dealing--even with fraudulent intent--below that threshold could not be charged under this statute. Moreover, the amendment requires the public official to act for the purpose of benefiting a financial interest.
Share
More from Patrick Leahy
on May 19, I echoed Secretary of State Blinken's call for an ``independent, credible investigation'' of the violent death of widely respected Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. At that time, several Members of Congress…
veterans make a valuable addition to any workplace. Vermont companies know this, which is why most employers in the State do their best to recruit former servicemembers. But some go far beyond others in their commitment to employing…
Congress was the original classification authority (OCA). It let that power essentially slip away to the Executive Branch.
the Johnson amendment asks us to cede the power of the purse to public servants in the executive branch who are unaccountable to the voters. These public servants, dedicated though they may be, cannot possibly share the depth of knowledge…





