In a rare unanimous ruling,the US Supreme Court has overturned the corruption conviction of a former Virginia governor,Robert McDonnell.But it did so while holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct,which included accepting gifts such as a Rolex watch and a Ferrari Automobile from a company seeking access to government.
The high court’s decision said the judge in Mr.McDonnell’s trail failed to tell a jury that it must look only at his“official acts,”or the former governor’s decisions on“specific”and“unsettled”issues related to his duties.
Merely helping a gift-giver gain access to other officials,unless done with clear intent to pressure those officials,is not corruption,the justices found.The court did suggest that accepting favors in return for opening doors is“distasteful”and“nasty.”But under anti-bribery laws,proof must be made of concrete benefits,such as approval of a contract or regulation.Simply arranging a meeting,making a phone call,or hosting an event is not an“official act.”
The court’s ruling is legally sound in defining a kind of favoritism that is not criminal.Elected leaders must be allowed to help supporters deal with bureaucratic problems without fear of prosecution of bribery.“The basic compact underlying representative government,”wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the court,“assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act on their concerns.”
But the ruling reinforces the need for citizens and their elected representatives,not the courts,to ensure equality of access to government.Officials must not be allowed to play favorites in providing information or in arranging meetings simply because an individual or group provides a campaign donation or a personal gift.This type of integrity requires will-enforced laws in government transparency,such as records of official meetings,rules on lobbying,and information about each elected leader’s source of wealth.
Favoritism in official access can fan public perceptions of corruption.But it is not always corruption.Rather officials must avoid double standards,or different types of access for average people and the wealthy.If connections can be bought,a basic premise of democratic society–that all are equal in treatment by government-is undermined.Good government rests on an understanding of the inherent worth of each individual.
The court’s ruling is a step forward in the struggle against both corruption and official favoritism.
According to Paragraph 4,an official act is deemed corruptive only if it involves____
- A.concrete returns for gift-givers
- B.sizable gains in the form of gifts
- C.leaking secrets intentionally
- D.breaking contracts officially
正确答案及解析
正确答案
解析
细节判断题。根据题干提示精准定位到第四段,题目是corruptive official act腐败行为的判断,根据第四段第二句,反贪污法明确说明,必须具有切实的利益才属于腐败。But under anti-bribery laws,proof must be made of tangible benefits。选项C,concrete returns对应concrete benefits.而选项B,sizable gains in form of gifts在第三段有明确指出not corruption,故排除。选项A,泄露秘密文中没有提及,选项D,对应原文第四段第二句举例,不属于贪污腐败行为。
包含此试题的试卷
你可能感兴趣的试题
-
- A.1.7
- B.1.9
- C.2.1
- D.2.0
- 查看答案
-
- A.0. 60
- B.0.50
- C.0. 12
- D.0.20
- 查看答案
如何理解今年一季度经常账户逆差的原因和影响?
- 查看答案
M 公司是一个无负债公司,其每年预期税息前收益为 10000 元,股东要求的 权益回报率为 16%,M 公司所得税率为 35%,但没有个人所得税,设所有交易 都在完善的资本市场中运行,问: A.M 公司的价值为多少? B.如果 M 公司借入面值为无负债公司价值的一半的利率为 10%的债务,债务 没有风险,并且所筹集的债务资金全部用于赎回股权,则此时公司的价值变为多 少?而权益资本成本为多少
- 查看答案
中美贸易失衡的原因并评价特朗普的贸易政策?
- 查看答案