18 U.S.C. § 600
Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003).
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). “[154] The evidence in the Court of Appeals opinion relating to giving ambassadorships in exchange for large donations discusses the conviction of one fundraiser under 18 U.S.C. § 600 for having promised a current Ambassador a more prestigious post in return for a $100,000…”
Morse v. Repub. Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186 (1996). “" 18 U. S. C. § 600 (emphasis added). See also § 601(b)(2) (defining "election" as, inter alia, "a convention or caucus of a political party held to nominate a candidate") (emphasis added).”
Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. 1 (2024). “, 18 U. S. C. § 600 ; 33 U. S. C. § 447 . More- over, without the term “rewarded” in § 666, an offcial might try to de- fend against a bribery charge by saying that the payment was received only after the offcial act and therefore could not have “infuenced” the act.”
United States v. Michael A. Pintar, United States of Am. v. Barbara Pintar, 630 F.2d 1270 (8th Cir. 1980). “§ 371 , violation of the Hatch Act, 18 U.S.C. § 600 , and four counts of embezzlement, 42 U.”
Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. 1 (2024). “, 18 U. S. C. §600 ; 33 U. S. C. §447 . Moreover, without the term “rewarded” in §666, an official might try to defend against a bribery charge by saying that the payment was received only after the official act and therefore could not have “influenced” the act.”
United States v. Leonard L. Cappetto, Individually & Doing Bus. as W. Avenuebilliards, 502 F.2d 1351 (7th Cir. 1974). “A defendant of course has the right under the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer a specific question on the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate him.”
Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “Final Report, supra note 35, at 493-94. The fund raisers routinely advised that only the President could guarantee nomination.”
Doug Lair v. Jonathan Motl, 889 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2018). “The court also observed that a major fund raiser “pleaded guilty to a charge of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 600 , in having promised, in 1971, a more prestigious post to Ambassador (to Trinidad) J.”
Luis De Vera v. Vicente G. Blaz Phil Flores, 851 F.2d 294 (9th Cir. 1988). “§ 599 (prohibiting promise of employment by a candidate); 18 U.S.C. § 600 (prohibit *297 ing the promise of “any employment .”
Hutchinson v. Miller, 797 F.2d 1279 (4th Cir. 1986). “§ 594 (prohibiting intimidation of voters); 18 U.S.C. § 600 (prohibiting promise of employment or other benefit for political activity).”
United States v. Tonry, 433 F. Supp. 620 (E.D. La. 1977). “Counts II, III and IV charge defendants with promising benefits for political contributions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 600 and § 2. Counts V through IX charge defendants with accepting political contributions in violation of the Federal Elections Campaign Act ( 2 U.”
In re Convert, 284 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “The suspension was based upon respondent’s prior conviction in April 1998 of a Federal misdemeanor for promising employment or other benefits to local government officials in New Jersey as consideration for political activity, specifically obtaining a zoning variance on behalf…”
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.