Daily Caller: Remember Blago? SCOTUS Says He’s In Jail Until 2024
By Kevin Daley
A 1991 case called McCormick v. U.S. explains that extortion in the campaign contribution context is only unlawful when a politician accepts a donation in exchange for an explicit promise or undertaking. However, a different case, Evans v. U.S., makes it unlawful to accept a contribution knowing a donor made it with certain expectations.
His petition claims federal appeals courts are divided as to how to reconcile these two cases, while the government says Blagojevich’s lawyers are manufacturing a non-existent controversy. The Court is much more likely to intervene when multiple federal appellate courts disagree about the same question of law.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sets precedent for the jurisdiction where Blagojevich was convicted, has embraced the weaker Evans standard. The former governor’s lawyers say the Supreme Court should clarify which case controls extortion prosecutions, toss out the conviction, and order a new trial.
Free speech advocates say the Evans standard is dangerous, and lends itself to prosecutorial overreach. The Institute for Free Speech submitted an amicus (or “friend-of-the-court”) brief urging the justices to take the case, arguing the Evans standard is so vague and overbroad that it allows prosecutors to bring cases based only on the subjective expectations of donors. They also fear it helps entrench incumbents, as it makes fundraising more difficult for first-time candidates.
