loki13: What, we don’t get to see Obama holding a giant check? That keeps me from the joy of seeing Dennis N (among others) attempt to show that the name on the check doesn’t match Obama’s Kenyan birtch certificate, or whatever crazy is being peddled today.

That’s uncalled for. I’ve been convinced it’s not a bribe, too.

PersonFromPorlock: Reader: By custom that goes back to the days of chivalry, the arms of the vanquished belong to the victor. So Bush’s receiving Saddam’s pistol is in line with tradition. Arguably, since Bush was CINC, he ‘received’ the pistol when American forces captured it: the generals merely delivered it. That blurs the distinction between the person of the president and the US government, of course, but the sin, such as it is, is not very great.

I suspect the weapon was accepted in the name of the US Government and logged in as government property. It may be on permanent loan to the Pres, as similar gifts and trophies are, but I can’t imagine that it was given to the man as personal property.

As far as Obama and the Nobel is concerned, it’s moot since, even if it is illegal for him to accept it, nothing is going to be done about it if he does.

That is certainly true, and I can’t imagine anyone being politically stupid enough to attempt to censure Him for accepting it.

That blurs the distinction between the person of the president and the US government, of course, but the sin, such as it is, is not very great.

As far as Obama and the Nobel is concerned, it’s moot since, even if it is illegal for him to accept it, nothing is going to be done about it if he does.

Steve: If a pol goes to a fundraiser and promises X, then a bunch of people supporting X write checks to his campaign, that looks like an agreement, but it’s still not a bribe.The reason it’s not a bribe is that they were under no obligation to write those checks.Similarly, I can donate 1000 bucks to Obama’s reelection fund with a note saying he should support gay marriage; there’s no quid pro quo because he gets to keep the money either way.

But as illegal payments, bribes don’t create any enforceable obligations. If you don’t follow through, I can’t make you return the money either. The prize money is CLEARLY not a bribe in any way shape or form, but having an actual agreement can’t be a required element to the existence of a bribe. If a judge is offered a briefcase full of cash by someone trying to influence the case and the judge takes the money but just says “I’ll think about it,” the judge took a bribe, even though there was no agreement (and even though the briber couldn’t go and get his money back if the judge ends up rulings against him).

We would not want a sitting U.S. President to be honored by the Nobel Committee if he is not on our party’s side. Really?

Edward A. Hoffman: Also, fwiw, the cash portion of a Nobel prize is conveyed by wire transfer, not by check.

What, we don’t get to see Obama holding a giant check? That keeps me from the joy of seeing Dennis N (among others) attempt to show that the name on the check doesn’t match Obama’s Kenyan birtch certificate, or whatever crazy is being peddled today.

Also, Dennis N’s argument is just stupid. The Nobel Committee were not paying money and gold for policy. Instead, it was the recognition that they hoped would encourage him to continue implementing the policies they support. If that’s a problem, local bar associations had better start being very careful who they award plaques to.

The reason it’s not a bribe is that they were under no obligation to write those checks. Similarly, I can donate 1000 bucks to Obama’s reelection fund with a note saying he should support gay marriage; there’s no quid pro quo because he gets to keep the money either way.

Committee members may be trying to further their own political views, and they may even be selected because their politics align with those of the Norwegian parliament, but that does not mean their decision is made either by or for Norway. It’s hard to see how the Norwegian government would care one way or the other about many prior winners of the peace prize; that it might care a great deal about this one does not mean it controlled the decision.

Also, fwiw, the cash portion of a Nobel prize is conveyed by wire transfer, not by check. I don’t know if this matters in any real sense, but some of the commenters presume that the payment will be made in the form of a check. Knowing that this is not the case may affect their analyses.

I’d guess Michele Bachmann would be at the head of that line.

ShelbyC:
Hold the phone there, chief.If I donate money to a pol hoping they will, say, lower taxes, and they accept, that doesn’t mean I bribed them.They have to agree to do so in exchange for the bribe.

I’d say even the agreement isn’t the key factor. If a pol goes to a fundraiser and promises X, then a bunch of people supporting X write checks to his campaign, that looks like an agreement, but it’s still not a bribe.

A bribe is an illicit payment to obtain a result. And they’re not limited to governmental officials. If I slip a university president $100 to give me a construction contract on the new dorm, I’ve bribed him. If I donate $1M to have the dorm named after him, that’s not a bribe.

You can argue that the Nobel is an impermissible gift, but it wasn’t a bribe. There was nothing illicit about it. They issued press releases and everything.

Dennis N: A bribe is the payment of something of value to a government official in the hope that in exchange for a committment that they will perform actions favorable to the briber. The Prize was awarded to Obama to encourage him to continue with his policies that the Nobel Committee approves of. Since he essentially has not done anything yet, the Prize is a bribe to encourage him to continue his policies.

Accepting a bribe is certainly an impeachable offense.

Hold the phone there, chief. If I donate money to a pol hoping they will, say, lower taxes, and they accept, that doesn’t mean I bribed them. They have to agree to do so in exchange for the bribe.

The fact that the Parliament actually picks the Commitee members is, arguably, the key fact.

Why? If they’d been picked by card draw, would that make them a casino? I’d have thought that the fact of actual agency would be the “key fact”. Are the committee members actually agents of the Norwegian government, doing its bidding? Are they required to follow the wishes of the Norwegian government, or the wishes of the Nobel will and trust?

Cheers,

I’m serious. The Prize, given as it was, is an attempt to influence US Foreign policy. It is precisely the sort of thing the FF wrote the Office of Profit or Trust clause to prevent.

We don’t have to argue that the recipient would bend US foreign policy in response to the bribe, only that the bribe was offered.

JasonF: Kidding aside, I would love to see a resolution introduced of the sort proposed by Reps. Brown-Waite, Stearns, and Paul — I’d like to know which Republicans are crazy enough to vote against the President of the United States being honored with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Really, I don’t see the harm in Congressional action to overcome the issue.

Although it would be great for the Republicans to enter an amendment into the bill that allocates funding for the F-22 project, if only to watch Democrats vote against the bill. Or, even better, it passes and we get to watch the President explain why he has to veto his own Nobel Prize.

I’m also very disappointed to see the Representatives’ letter discussing the “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court”…

I have not yet seen a dispassionate analysis of the relevant issues — whether the Nobel Prize is associated with a foreign government, whether and how the funds might property directed toward a charity, whether the President should request Congressional consent, etc. I hope someone conducts such an analysis and that President Obama acts properly.

From a political perspective, a wise course might be a Congressional resolution that documents consent and lauds the President for bringing such honor to the United States of America. A unanimous vote would extinguish any legitimate concerns; if any member of Congress took the bait and voted against such a resolution, so much the better (from a purely partisan perspective).

A bribe is the payment of something of value to a government official in the hope that they will perform actions favorable to the briber. The Prize was awarded to Obama to encourage him to continue with his policies that the Nobel Committee approves of. Since he essentially has not done anything yet, the Prize is a bribe to encourage him to continue his policies.

Accepting a bribe is certainly an impeachable offense.

Steve: It’s kind of funny the way this post analyzes the spot price of gold, as if Obama might have the medal melted down or perhaps just auction it off on eBay.Also, wow, what a self-discrediting post by Hans Bader.

It does seem silly, but that’s what the statute says. What the statute is trying to get at is that you shouldn’t accept gifts that you would either sell for more than $100 or would have paid more than $100 for. Of course, the value of the gold medal to Obama or to anyone else clearly has very little to do with the price of gold.

It’s kind of funny the way this post analyzes the spot price of gold, as if Obama might have the medal melted down or perhaps just auction it off on eBay. Also, wow, what a self-discrediting post by Hans Bader.

I think Obama is going to get one of those free envelopes from Cash4Gold and send it to them.

It’s perfectly OK for Obama to accept the check on behalf of the U.S. government. But accepting it for himself, even if he gives the money to charity, is a different matter.

Obama has been quoted as saying that he will do just the contrary: accept the money for himself, and then give it to charity, which is a form of receiving it for himself (income is yours, and is taxable as yours, even if you give it to your favorite charity, under court rulings and tax rulings).

I originally said that Obama’s receipt of the prize money was harmless.

I changed my mind after I learned that he planned to use it for his own purposes (charities that serve his political or other interests), rather than give it to taxpayers.

Here is what I said at my blog:

NOBEL PRIZE HYPOCRISY

Drug companies are forbidden from offering freebies to doctors in some liberal states, like Massachusetts and Vermont, under the theory that doctors' loyalty can be bought simply by giving them free pens and beverages worth a few cents.

Given that Norway is usually a friendly country, Obama's Nobel Prize money may not cause any tangible harm, putting aside any legal issues (although Norway has differed with the U.S. on some major foreign policy issues in the past, like the Vietnam War). But it certainly is hypocritical to turn a blind eye to Obama's lucrative $1.4 million, while obsessing over free pens and beverages being given to doctors, or free books given to bloggers. (Even if Obama gives the $1.4 million to charity, it still won't change matters. A gift is a gift even if it's later given to charity, and most people would be thrilled to have $1.4 million to give to charity).

It’s not as though this is completely unprecedented, or even that one has to go back to the era of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson for precedents. Government employees have won Nobel Prizes for physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and economics in the last 30 years. If those people got to keep the cash (subject possibly to approval by an ethics official), Obama should be able to do so as well.

Kidding aside, I would love to see a resolution introduced of the sort proposed by Reps. Brown-Waite, Stearns, and Paul — I’d like to know which Republicans are crazy enough to vote against the President of the United States being honored with the Nobel Peace Prize.