Whoever . . . being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agree to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for . . . being influenced in the performance of any official act . . . or . . . being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person . . . shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. . . .
So, we're talking about a quid pro quo - an agreement for something of value in exchange for an official act.
But, Virgil didn't get something of value, you may think. These were contributions for his reelection campaign, not his own wallet, so Virgil is in the clear ... right?
Not so fast. Notice that the statutes is triggered by "anything of value personally or for any other person or entity" -- so cash for a campaign certainly qualifies. Indeed, federal courts have universally agreed that that swapping official actions for campaign cash can land an official in jail, as well.
Now, recall the words of Goode's former chief of staff Jim Severt, who explained that Virgil ?doesn?t need a mansion or a Cadillac, because his life is politics? and that ?giving him $90,000 in campaign contributions has as much influence on him as giving him a Rolls Royce or a yacht, because politics is all he has.? So, according to Virgil's own former chief of staff, a bribe to Virgil Goode could very much look like a campaign contribution. Afterall, his political well-being is paramount to him, and the payoff in March 2005 came soon after the expensive 2004 campaign.
So, was this a hefty sum of campaign contributions in exchange for lucrative federal funding for the MZM facility? The timing - three months between the give and take - is certainly suspicious. Divining the mindset of Virgil Goode is a hard thing to do, and prosecutors likely lack the evidence to meet the strict bribery statute's requirements. Nevertheless, this whole thing smells fishy and smacks of a public official corruptly receiving something of immense value to him in return for being influenced in the performance of his official duties.
How could such a man deserve the public's trust?