Summary#
The Stop Corrupt Gratuities Act is an introduced bill that would amend the federal criminal law in Title 18 of the U.S. Code. It would add criminal penalties for certain rewards connected to qualifying transactions involving state, local, or tribal governments, their agencies, or organizations. Its stated goal, as described by the bill’s title and text, is to address corrupt gratuities.
- A government or organization agent who solicits or demands, or accepts or agrees to accept, something of value intending to be rewarded in connection with a qualifying transaction could face a federal penalty.
- A person who gives, offers, or agrees to give something of value intending to reward such an agent could also face a penalty.
- The transaction, or series of transactions, must involve at least $5,000 in value, and a separate cross-referenced condition in the law must also be met.
- The penalty would be a fine under federal law, imprisonment for up to two years, or both. The bill does not set a specific fine amount.
- The bill is not law. It has been introduced in the Senate and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
What it means for you#
- State, local, and tribal government agents, and organization agents: If the bill became law, the specified conduct could be a federal crime when the transaction and other coverage conditions are met. The bill exempts conduct provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty.
- People and businesses giving or offering something of value: The bill could apply even when the item is given to someone other than the agent, if the giver intends to reward the agent in connection with a qualifying transaction.
- General public: The bill would not ban all gifts to public officials. It targets gifts or rewards with the stated intent and connection to a qualifying transaction. It does not create an application or review process.
Money#
No publicly available information.
- The supplied material includes no estimate of federal costs for investigations, prosecutions, or imprisonment.
- The bill authorizes fines but does not state their amount.
What is unclear#
- The bill relies on a separate “covered circumstance” in the existing law. The supplied material does not include that condition, so the full set of transactions covered cannot be confirmed.
- The existing law that the bill would amend was not supplied. I could not verify how its definitions, exceptions, or current rules would interact with the new provision.
- The bill does not explain how terms such as “in connection with” would be applied, or how the new rule would interact with other laws.
- The bill does not specify who would investigate or prosecute cases, or give an effective date.
- It provides no estimate of enforcement or incarceration costs.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that it would expressly cover both sides of a reward: the agent who seeks or accepts it and the person who offers or gives it.
- The bill would address rewards tied to transactions of at least $5,000, while retaining an exception for conduct allowed by law in the proper discharge of official duty.
- Its two-year maximum prison term could allow punishment for covered gratuities without making the maximum penalty the same as for more serious offenses.
Case against#
- The bill uses broad phrases such as “anything of value” and “in connection with.” Without the existing law and guidance on how those terms apply, it is hard to tell exactly where the boundary lies.
- The coverage condition is not included in the supplied text. That makes it difficult to assess how many government or organization transactions would be covered.
- The bill does not provide an enforcement plan, cost estimate, or details on how the new rule would be applied alongside existing laws.