Overview
Title
To amend title 18, United State Code, to amend the definition of official act for purposes of the prohibition of bribery.
ELI5 AI
The bill H.R. 7689 wants to change the rules about what counts as an "official act" to make sure that public officials can't accept gifts or money for doing their jobs. This means they want to make sure that officials can't be bribed for things like giving advice or doing investigations.
Summary AI
H.R. 7689, introduced in the 118th Congress by Representatives Craig, Mace, Sorensen, and Kim, aims to modify title 18 of the United States Code. This bill changes the definition of "official act" related to the prohibition of bribery, potentially broadening its scope to include a wider array of decisions, actions, and other activities that public officials might conduct. The proposed changes are encapsulated in the "Gifts for Officials, Legislators and Delegate (GOLD) Standard Act of 2024."
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
House Bill 7689 aims to amend the definition of an "official act" in US law, specifically in the context of prohibiting bribery. The legislation seeks to clarify and potentially expand what actions by public officials are considered "official acts" subject to bribery laws. Introduced in March 2024, this bill is officially titled the "Gifts for Officials, Legislators and Delegate (GOLD) Standard Act of 2024."
Summary of Significant Issues
One major issue arising from this bill is the broadness and potential ambiguity in the definition of "official act." It encompasses actions like giving advice or conducting investigations without specific boundaries. Such inclusivity could lead to different interpretations, causing uncertainty about what precisely qualifies as an "official act."
Additionally, the term "official act" is defined to include any matter that could be legally brought before a public official or in their place of trust or profit. This phrasing is somewhat vague and might lead to confusion regarding its scope. There is a concern that it might include actions not traditionally viewed as official, thereby creating legal challenges or inconsistencies.
Impact on the Public
The public might experience an increased sense of accountability in government, knowing that the definition of potential bribery implications has been widened. Officials may approach their roles with more caution, aware of the expanded breadth of actions that might now fall under scrutiny. However, the ambiguity in defining official acts may also lead to complex legal interpretations, possibly causing delays in legal proceedings and affecting public trust in the judicial process.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Public officials are primary stakeholders who would be directly impacted. This expanded definition could potentially subject them to more scrutiny, influencing how they conduct their duties. The law could deter unethical behavior if officials are mindful of their responsibilities. Conversely, the imprecise language might result in unintentional legal exposure, potentially burdening officials with the necessity of defending routine decisions.
Legal personnel and the judiciary, being interpreters and enforcers of this law, may face hurdles due to the broad terminology. They may have to navigate through varied interpretations to ascertain what constitutes an "official act," possibly leading to inconsistent enforcement.
Lobbyists and businesses interacting with the government could also find themselves affected. They will need clarity regarding the boundaries of lawful interactions with officials to avoid inadvertent violations. This could influence their strategies and operations, prompting more caution in dealings with government entities.
In conclusion, while the bill’s intention to strengthen anti-bribery measures is clear, its broad definition of "official act" presents challenges that require careful legal interpretation and possibly more precise legislative drafting to minimize unintended consequences for officials and other stakeholders.
Issues
The definition of 'official act' in Section 2 is broad and could lead to varying interpretations, as it includes actions such as 'advice' or 'investigation' without clear parameters. This ambiguity might affect legal proceedings related to bribery as it may not clearly define what constitutes an 'official act.', potentially impacting numerous stakeholders.
Section 2's definition may be too inclusive, potentially encompassing actions not traditionally considered official acts. This could lead to legal ambiguity or challenges, as individuals or entities may not have clarity on what actions might be construed as 'official acts' for bribery prohibition purposes.
The phrase 'in such official’s place of trust or profit' in Section 2 is vague and could be interpreted in multiple ways, potentially leading to confusion about the scope of what constitutes an 'official act' and possibly resulting in uneven application of bribery laws.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this Act gives it a short name: the "Gifts for Officials, Legislators and Delegate (GOLD) Standard Act of 2024."
2. Official act defined Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Section 2 of a proposed amendment to United States law clarifies what the term "official act" means. It describes an official act as any decision or action taken by a public official in their role, involving any question or issue that could come before them legally or in their capacity of trust or responsibility.