Public Corruption—Farmington, New Mexico

When US Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham pleaded guilty to accepting bribes a month ago, it was a perfect example of the type of enormous largess people tend to expect when they think of public corruption. For example, Mr. Cunningham received cash, cars, rugs, antiques, furniture, yacht club fees, moving expenses, and vacations totally roughly $2.4 million from defense contractors in exchange for aid in winning defense contracts.^[1] He also received a Rolls Royce, a graduation party for his daughter, a $200,000 down payment on a condominium, and the payment of capital gains taxes on the sale of his home.^[2] When some of the assets related to the bribery case were seized for auction, it was a demonstration of sheer opulence: Persian rugs, a silver candelabra, vases, armoires, a leather sofa, a sleigh-style bed, and even a 19th-century French commode (which is a chest of drawers, not a toilet).^[3]

Largess, however, is certainly not required to have the federal government seek an indictment for public corruption. Norman Geoff McMahon of Farmington, New Mexico can certainly attest to that. Mr. McMahon was indicted on December 14 by a federal grand jury in the Albuquerque federal District Court.^[4] He is accused of bribing Ralph Mason, a former Bureau of Land Management [hereinafter BLM] employee, a total of four times.^[5] The total amount of the alleged bribes? Only $7,000 over a 14-month period: there were allegedly two separate payments of $2,500 made “on or about Dec. 15, 2000,” and two payments of $1,000 made “on or about Feb. 15, 2002.”^[6]

The indictment, which BLM denies any knowledge of its existence, states that the funds were given “in return for influencing the public official in the performance of any official act relating to the [BLM] permit to mine humate.”^[7] Humate is a mineral made from fossilized plants and animals which is used in fertilizer.^[8] According to a spokesman for BLM’s Farmington office, Mr. Mason was “let go” by BLM some time ago, but wouldn’t provide a reason for the discharge.^[9]

The reason why public corruption prosecutions can target both high-rollers and more modest “givers” is because the federal statute covering bribery sets an incredibly low threshold. In short, if any person gives anything of value to any public official, with the intent to influence any official act, the federal government can prosecute that person.^[10]

The intent of the “giver” is key in these situations. Obviously, if the offeror of the bribe writes “in exchange for influencing an official act” in the memo section of his check, that would pretty well establish the requisite intent. Typically, however, circumstances are not that clear-cut. Furthermore, the thing of value “must be given with more than some ‘generalized hope or expectation of ultimate benefit on the part of the donor.’ … The money must be offered, in other words, with the intent and design to influence official action in exchange for the donation.”^[11] The recipient of the bribe, moreover, does not need to be “actually corrupted by the offer,” nor is it “necessary to show that the official accepted the bribe.”^[12]

Intent can be proven by introducing evidence of “overheard conversations” or by introducing “circumstantial evidence” which tends to suggest the requisite intent.^[13]

---

[1] John M. Broder, Congressman Resigns After Admitting He Took Bribes, NY Times, Nov. 28, 2005.
[2] Id.
[3] Tony Perry, Articles from Graft Case to be Auctioned, LA Times, Dec. 7, 2005.
[4] Nathan Gonzalez, et al., Local Man Indicted, Accused of Bribing BLM, Farmington Daily Times, Dec. 29, 2005.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(A).
[11] United States v. Johnson, 621 F.2d 1073, 1076 (10th Cir. 1980) (internal citation omitted).
[12] Id.
[13] Id.