Michael Moore is an obnoxious jerk, but most of what he does is within the bounds that we must tolerate as the price of freedom of speech. Yesterday, though, he may have stepped over the line in a Facebook post addressed to Republican electors.
But some states have made it "illegal" for you to vote any other way than for Trump. If you don't vote for him, your state will fine you $1,000. So here's my offer to you: I obviously can't and won't give you money to vote tomorrow, but if you do vote your conscience and you are punished for it, I will personally step up pay your fine which is my legal right to do.Stepping up and paying someone's fine might be a legal right, but is promising to do so in order to influence that person's vote a legal right? I think it's a legal wrong.
Let's take a look at 18 U.S.C. § 201.
Is a presidential elector a federal official or a state official? Hmmm. That's a bit more difficult.
The really funny part of Moore's post comes at the end:
Why don't you seriously start listening, Mr. Moore? Now, not someday. Why don't you permanently can your self-superior obnoxious attitude? When you have demonstrated that willingness, not promised it for someday, maybe we can have a serious conversation.
(b) Whoever-- (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent--Is promising to discharge a debt that a person would otherwise have to pay out of his own pocket a promise of a thing of value? I think so. In tax law a discharge of debt counts as income. Moore is certainly trying to influence an official act under paragraph (A). If the state laws are valid, then he is trying to induce a breach of duty under paragraph (C). Official act, by the way, is broadly defined:(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person
(a)(3) the term "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.Note that there is no requirement under (b)(1) that the official accept the offer. The offeror is guilty from the moment he makes the offer.
Is a presidential elector a federal official or a state official? Hmmm. That's a bit more difficult.
(a) For the purpose of this section--I'm not sure about that one. Are electors acting "for or on behalf of the United States" or their states? In any event, all states have bribery laws, so if the electors are state officials then surely Moore has violated multiple states' bribery laws.(1) the term "public official" means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
The really funny part of Moore's post comes at the end:
Thank you for listening to my plea. I promise to return the favor someday. A lot more listening to each other, regardless of our political positions, could go a long way to truly making America great again.Seriously. Michael Moore promises to listen to conservatives. Someday. This is a guy who drips with sneering, condescending, insulting contempt for everyone who disagrees with him. Has he ever, in his entire life, seriously listened to conservatives and tried to understand their point of view? Not to my knowledge. Now he says that listening can truly make America great again.
Why don't you seriously start listening, Mr. Moore? Now, not someday. Why don't you permanently can your self-superior obnoxious attitude? When you have demonstrated that willingness, not promised it for someday, maybe we can have a serious conversation.
Interesting. Seems to me, though, that Moore's actions don't cross the line (or more accurately, they do, but are protected). Paying someone's fine )or promising to do so) in a manner designed to liberate them from the strictures of a likely unconstitutional law seems to me to be protected by the First Amendment. Granted, it's a little tough to get there since payment of money is what's prescribed by the law, but the promise to pay a fine of another seems to me to be the sort of act that would be protected by the traditions of our notions of free political exercise.
Federalist beat me to it. I was wondering if it would be a defense to bribery on these facts to argue that the law imposing a fine on an elector is unconstitutional, given that the intent of the framers (or at least Hamilton) was for electors to be independent.
Certainly room for disagreement here. I think, though, that the promise to pay the fine implies that he will pay the fine if the constitutional challenge to the statute fails. If the statute is held unconstitutional, then there is no fine to pay.
At the time he made the offer, the constitutionality of the statutes was unsettled, and it remains unsettled today. So he was offering a kind of insurance policy, a thing of value, to influence an official act. Still sounds like bribery under paragraph (A) to me.
Unconstitutionality of the statute would be a defense to a charge under paragraph (C), for sure, as there would then be no "lawful duty" breached.
"Notablogger":
Do you speak of the Alexander Hamilton who "created the Electoral College",
the homo/transphobic, evangelical, sexist militarist who is currently being
fêted as a hero for democrats?
Liberals love Alexander Hamilton.
But Aaron Burr was a real progressive hero.
~ www.inquisitr.com/3730357/alexander-hamilton-musical-electoral-college-
who-created-voted-yet-2016-presidential-election-united-states-history/; www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/30/liberals-love-
alexander-hamilton-but-aaron-burr-was-a-real-progressive-hero/?utm_term=.567a940a696e
Thanks for your comment, Kent. This is an interesting issue to be sure.
Adamakis, why the hostility in your apparent retort to my earlier comment, which, as I stated, is essentially the same as Federalist's point? Also, what does Alexander Hamilton's personal homophobia, sexism, etc. (hardly uncommon views in the 18th and 19th centuries) have to do with whether the electoral college was intended to be an independent body or not? Good heavens.