This Article explores the original meaning of the word “Emolument(s)” in the Constitution. It identifies four common definitions in founding-era political discourse. It places the constitutional use within its context as part of a larger reform movement in Britain and America and as driven by other historical events. The Article examines how the word was employed in contemporaneous reform measures, in official congressional and state documents, in the constitutional debates, and in the constitutional text. 

The author concludes that the three appearances of “emoluments” in the Constitution had a common meaning, which was “compensation with financial value, received by reason of public employment.”

The Original Meaning of ‘Emoluments’ in the Constitution

In American politics, the practice of political fundraising has blurred the lines regarding what should and should not be considered corruption by public officials. The two primary statutes that cover public corruption on the federal level, the Anti-Bribery statute and the Hobbs Act, both define illegal corruption as a bribe or kickback given to a public official in return for some “official action.” In McDonnell v. United States, the Supreme Court defined what constitutes an “official action” under these two statutes. To craft this definition, the Court had to draw a line between benign public official-constituent interactions and illegal corruption. The Court sought to decide which side of this line a “typical meeting, call, or event” falls. In an unanimous opinion, the Court sided with Petitioner McDonnell, holding that a “normal meeting, call, or event” does not constitute an “official action” under both the Anti-Bribery statute and the Hobbs Act. The Court’s holding draws a reasonable line between permissible conduct and public corruption, but it may have the result of insulating public officials from criminal convictions for certain types of seemingly nefarious conduct. This commentary will begin by summarizing the competing interpretations of “official act” proposed

/pdf/mcdonnell-v-united-states-defining-official-action-in-public-4pv6zop68d.pdf

McDonnell v. United States: Defining “Official Action” in Public Corruption Law

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767 I. LEGAL HISTORY OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769 A. Corruption: A Classical View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770 B. Political Corruption at Common Law: From Gifts to Bribery to Impeachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771 C. The Framers: Influence of the Classical & Common Law Views . . . . 773 II. THE FRAMERS’ FRAMEWORK: A CORRUPT-FREE EXECUTIVE. . . . . . . . . . . 775 A. The Foreign Emoluments Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776 B. The Domestic Emoluments Clause. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777 C. The Impeachment Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778 III. INTERPRETING THE FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779 A. The Emoluments Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779 1. Office of Profit or Trust Under the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780 2. Emoluments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 782 3. Congressional Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 788 B. The Impeachment Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791 1. Bribery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791 2. High Crimes & Misdemeanors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794 IV. APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK: PRIMACY OF POLITICAL VIRTUE AS ALLEGIANCE TO THE LAW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798 A. Political Virtue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798 B. Allegiance to the Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800

/pdf/understanding-the-spirit-of-the-constitution-on-corruption-53b736ew6c.pdf

Lea Mano

Papers

Understanding the Spirit of the Constitution on Corruption: Emoluments, Impeachment, and the Primacy of Political Virtue