‘ Clear and correct’ on corruption

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court vacated the conviction of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell and slapped down yet another executive power grab — this time checking the power of arbitrary federal prosecution.

The issue in the case was whether Gov. McDonnell undertook an “official act” by, for example, “calling an official,” “setting up a meeting,” or “hosting an event” for a donor. As the high court recognized, “conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time.” This kind of interaction is not corruption but rather a protected feature of a system of elected representative governance.

There is no doubt the federal government has an interest in prosecuting officials for actual corruption. But here, just as we argued in our amicus brief, the government’s “unlimited” and “standardless” position transgressed protected political interaction, due process and federalism — and was more than any justice could bear.

Properly drawing the line between genuine quid pro quo corruption and things like “setting up meetings” is key. There was no forbidden quid pro quo in this case. And while some contend the jury was able to tell that Gov. McDonnell “crossed the line,” the “line” presented to the jury was wrong: The jury should have been instructed “that merely arranging a meeting or hosting an event to discuss a matter does not count as a decision or action on that matter.”

So, an official crosses the line by deciding, agreeing to decide, or pressuring others to decide a question in exchange for a gift. The high court was both clear and correct that hosting events is not enough, and the government’s own witnesses testified that Gov. McDonnell “asked them to attend a meeting, not that he expected them to do anything other than that.”

In the end, this case was about a brazen, overreaching Obama Justice Department and whether the government may arbitrarily prosecute an official for granting mere access to financial supporters. According to the Constitution, and a unanimous Supreme Court, the answer is “No.”

Jay Sekulow is chief counsel of the Washington- based American Center for Law and Justice.