Previously published in Roll Call (April 24, 2012).
In two recent decisions, federal courts have answered questions
from columns earlier this year. While both cases raised the
prospect of significant changes to federal political law, the
courts' decisions ultimately left things much as they were.
The first question concerned an argument made by former Rep.
William Jefferson (D-La.) in his appeal of convictions for multiple
felonies for allegedly accepting bribes in exchange for performing
constituent services. Jefferson argued that the trial judge had
inaccurately instructed the jury regarding the law on bribery.
The federal bribery statute defines illegal bribery as
soliciting or accepting something of value in return for
"being influenced in the performance of any official
act." Jefferson argued that the trial judge erred in his
instruction defining "official act" when he told the jury
that it encompassed acts "clearly established by settled
practice as part of
