18 U.S.C. § 599
Promise of appointment by candidate
Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1939–2015 · leading case: United States v. Rod Blagojevich
United States v. Rod Blagojevich (2015)
“(Whether it might have violated 18 U.S.C. § 599 , and whether that statute is compatible with the First Amendment, are issues we do not address.”
United States v. Manzo (2011)
“§ 599 : Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall…”
United States v. Field (1952)
“” This, too, is said in the Note to be “a restatement of existing law and practice,” based in part on 18 U.S.C. § 599 , now § 3142, providing for the surrender of his principal by the bail.”
United States v. Manzo (2012)
“” Federal election law more explicitly extends bribery crimes to candidates in 18 U.S.C. § 599 , which states, “Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any…”
Luis De Vera v. Vicente G. Blaz Phil Flores (1988)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 599 (prohibiting promise of employment by a candidate); 18 U.”
United States v. Manzo (2010)
“18 U.S.C. § 599 . In this case, at least in part, Defendants are charged with accepting money in exchange for the promise to promote Mr.”
United States ex rel. Platt v. Jaeger (1939)
“§ 599 [ 18 U.S.C.A. § 599 ] or to any other provision of law, “but was contrary thereto, and in violation of said section and was therefore void and a nullity.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.