John, Senator Bob Menendez’s corruption trial begins today.

Menendez and his wife are charged with accepting $566,000 in cash, $150,000 in gold bars and a drop-top Mercedes-Benz from businessmen in exchange for his willingness to use his political power to help allies in New Jersey and the governments of Egypt and Qatar.

As a U.S. senator and chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, Menendez has a duty to serve Americans and uphold the Constitution. Rather than protect the public interest, Menendez allegedly used his office to profit — but whether he’s held accountable for engaging in bribery hinges on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a lesser-known law.

The government’s case makes it clear that Menendez committed numerous official acts to conspire and aid the co-defendants and the Egyptian government — and then sought any opportunity to cover up the bribes. But ultimately, this case will be decided on the Supreme Court’s narrow case law interpreting Section 201(a)(3), known as the bribery statute.

Specifically, the statute prohibits giving or accepting anything of value to or by a public official if the thing is given “with intent to influence any official act,” or if it is received by the official in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. Under the bribery statute, an “official act means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.”

But the interpretation of this law has narrowed over time.

Now, courts use the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonnell v. United States as the framework for determining whether or not a public official committed an “official act” within the meaning of the criminal bribery statute. Under the Supreme Court’s reading, a general pressure campaign to help a patron is not an official act. Rather, under McDonnell, an official act only occurs when a public official makes a decision or takes an action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” like a lawsuit or an agency determination.

Senator Bob Menendez’s alleged participation in a multi-year corruption scheme is a clear example of the risks to our democracy when top government officials fail to meet the most basic ethical standards.

But while Menendez should be convicted of bribery, the Court’s recent judicial interpretation of Section 201 is making even this slam dunk case more challenging. We’ll be here to break it down every step of the way.

If you believe we need to hold our elected leaders accountable no matter the obstacles, then make a donation to CREW and help us continue our work →

Thank you,

Team CREW