The ‘honest services’ fraud statute threatens the rule of law

Photo of David Rittgers
David Rittgers
  • See All Articles
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Bio

      David Rittgers

      David Rittgers is a legal policy analyst who concentrates on civil liberties, counterterrorism, and criminal justice. Prior to joining Cato, Mr. Rittgers served in the United States Army as an Infantry and Special Forces officer, including three tours in Afghanistan. He has been awarded an Army Commendation Medal with a "V" Device for valorous action and two Bronze Star Medals, and continues to serve as a reserve Judge Advocate. Rittgers has published articles in the Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, National Review (Online), Findlaw, and The First Amendment Law Review. He has appeared on Fox's The O'Reilly Factor, CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, the BBC, and NPR's Talk of the Nation. In 2009, Mr. Rittgers was selected as one of the Center for a New American Security's Next Generation National Security Leaders Program. Rittgers earned his J.D. from the University of North Carolina and is a member of the Virginia bar. Any views expressed by Mr. Rittgers are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Defense or the Army.

The recent conviction of former lobbyist Kevin Ring under the “honest services” fraud statute marks the continuing mission creep of federal criminal law. Ring’s case is a cautionary tale of the terrible legal outcomes that can come about when a thoroughly dislikable — although statutorily innocent — defendant is in the dock.

Ring, who occasionally contributes to The Daily Caller, was a lobbyist associated with the much-reviled Jack Abramoff. The prosecution submitted as evidence an email where Ring discusses the need to “smack around” Treasury officials who were antagonizing one of his clients. Ring’s running joke in the office was holding up large campaign checks and remarking, “Hello, quid, where’s the pro quo?”

Ring’s behavior was certainly unseemly, but nothing presented at trial showed a bribe or kickback that illegally influenced lawmakers.

Last term, the Supreme Court decided three cases that should have killed the “honest services” fraud statute under which Ring was convicted. Instead, the Court rewrote the statute in an attempt to limit abuse of a vague law. The Ring case shows us how little has changed.

The “honest services” statute criminalizes “a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” This criminalized an employee lying to his employer, and as Justice Scalia pointed out, “would seemingly cover a salaried employee’s phoning in sick to go to a ball game.” Prosecutors were able to get those convicted up to five years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, or both.

As a practical matter, the law gave federal prosecutors the power to criminalize objectionable behavior, conflating the merely unethical with the intentionally criminal. Behavior that was not illegal under state law (particularly state ethics requirements for public officials) became illegal under federal law.

The Supreme Court took up the constitutionality of the statute last term with an appeal from Ken Skilling of Enron fame. The Court’s majority did not strike down the ambiguous statute, but instead rewrote it to cover cases of bribery and kickbacks.

While this sounds like an improvement, it is not the role of the Court to rewrite laws for Congress. And the latest conviction in an “honest services” fraud case shows that this statute continues to make bad law, putting cases to juries on an undefined standard.

The Supreme Court has held that the burden in public corruption cases, where legitimate lobbying and campaign donations (protected by the First Amendment) mean that money will change hands, an explicit bribe or kickback must be proven. To do otherwise threatens to outlaw lobbying as a profession and campaign contributions as an expression of political support.

Unfortunately, District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle refused a proposed instruction to Ring’s jury for an explicit quid pro quo standard. Jurors admitted “that they didn’t know much about how lobbying worked before the case, but prosecutors convinced them Ring had crossed the line.” As one juror put it, “[t]here’s a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things.”

This is an “I know it when I see it” standard of criminal justice. Which is to say, no standard at all.

Ring may not engender much sympathy, but as his liberty goes, so goes ours.

  • J L Fuller

    I only know about this case by what I have read above. However, there are three widely recognized and accepted methods of setting rules for procedure and governance in this country. The first is by legislative action, the second by administrative action and the third is by a court’s finding such as in case law. So the writers opinion about how the court was out of bounds on this issue is off base and not widely held. Sorry Mr. Rittgers but you swung and missed on this one. The supremes were well within their rights to do what they did.