V. Gifts and Compensation for Casework

When assisting constituents, Members and staff should be aware that the federal criminal code prohibits the receipt of anything of value in return for or because of official actions.[41] Gifts offered as a thank you for casework assistance should generally be declined.

Members and employees also may not ask for or receive compensation for “services rendered” in relation to matters or proceedings in which the United States is a party or has an interest.[42] No funds or things of value, other than one’s official salary, may be accepted for dealing with an administrative agency on behalf of a constituent.

Caution should always be exercised to avoid the appearance that solicitations of campaign contributions from constituents are connected in any way with a legislator’s official advocacy. A discussion of this problem was offered by Senator Douglas:

It is probably not wrong for the campaign managers of a legislator to request contributions from those for whom the legislator has done appreciable favors, but this should never be presented as a payment for the services rendered. Moreover, the possibility of such a contribution should never be suggested by the legislator or his staff at the time the favor is done. Furthermore, a decent interval of time should be allowed to lapse so that neither party will feel that there is a close connection between the two acts. Finally, not the slightest pressure should be put upon the recipients of the favors in regard to the campaign. It should be clearly understood that any gift they make is voluntary and there will be no question of reprisals or lack of future help by the legislator if the gift is withheld. In other words, any contribution should be not a quid pro quo but rather a wholly voluntary offering based upon personal friendship and a belief in the effectiveness of the legislator sharpened perhaps by individual experience.[43]

[43] Douglas, supra note 1, at 89-90.

Close

If a Member were to ask for political support as a quid pro quo for official action, the Member could be subject to extortion charges. In overturning the conviction of a state legislator, the Supreme Court observed that soliciting campaign contributions from constituents with legislative business could be extortion, “but only if the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act.”[44] The Court held in that case that, given the realities of financing campaigns, “[w]hatever ethical considerations and appearances may indicate,” it is generally not a federal crime for legislators to “act for the benefit of constituents or support legislation furthering the interests of some of their constituents, shortly before or after campaign contributions are solicited and received from those beneficiaries.”[45]

Other limitations may affect assistance to private individuals, even when no compensation is involved. Under House Rules and federal law, employees usually may not represent individuals or organizations before the government other than in the performance of official duties.[46] Although Members are not subject to the same statutory limitations, representing a private entity before the government outside of official duties may be inconsistent with a representative’s obligations to serve the public interest.[47]