Supreme ordeal to convict

When the Supreme Court delivered its now infamous McDonnell decision, reversing the corruption convictions of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, many people feared that it could have terrible implications for future corruption prosecutions. Following the mistrial of Sen. Bob Menendez, it is now abundantly clear that, thanks to the Supreme Court, it has become significantly harder to convict an elected official of corruption.

New York has already seen the convictions of Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos overturned, and on Thursday a mistrial was declared in another bribery prosecution, the case of Norman Seabrook, former head of New York’s correction officers union. Seabrook was accused of steering millions of dollars of correction officers savings into high-risk investment funds — for which he allegedly received kickbacks. In each of those cases, prosecutors have promised to try the defendants again. As the Seabrook case shows, convicting a powerful person of bribery is never easy. But with the mistrial of Menendez, we must wonder whether the days of seeing corrupt politicians behind bars are a thing of the past. The McDonnell decision appears to have made bribery nearly impossible to prove except in the most extreme cases.

It does not have to be this way. Rep. Thomas Suozzi of Long Island has introduced a bipartisan bill, the Close Official Acts Loophole Act — or COAL Act — which would prevent politicians from following the playbook the Supreme Court has effectively laid out for how to receive bribes without committing a crime. If Congress passes the bill, a politician would no longer be allowed to sell to the highest bidder his ability to lean on other government officials.

If they don’t, this might be open season for government corruption.