Issues From Espy Bribery Case
Make Their Way To High Court

WASHINGTON —(AP)— The Supreme Court is trying to sort out distinctions between innocent "good will" and illegal gifts to government officials, using a case that arose from the corruption investigation of former Clinton administration Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy.

The tangled rules governing gifts or favors that officials may or may not accept on the job were on display during the four-year prosecution of Espy and some of the companies that gave him things.

The independent counsel appointed to investigate Espy asked the justices Tuesday to reinstate the gratuities conviction of Sun-Diamond Growers of California. The farm cooperative's head lobbyist spent $2295 for Espy to attend the U.S. Open tennis tournament and otherwise wined and dined him.

``In the first 14 months of Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy's tenure, Sun-Diamond lavished on its chief regulator thousands of dollars in gifts while it had millions of dollars at stake,'' Deputy Independent Counsel Robert Ray argued.

The court is expected to clarify by July the federal law that makes it a crime to give a gift to a public official ``for or because of any official act performed or to be performed.''

Lawyers for Sun-Diamond maintain the company did nothing wrong in giving things to Espy, since there was no arranged quid pro quo and no specific intent to influence him.

Several justices offered hypothetical situations where gifts or invitations could have sinister or pure motives, depending on shades of interpretation.

Justice Antonin Scalia repeatedly used the hypothetical example of the chairman of AT&T doling out cash to the chief of the Federal Communications Commission with no specific strings attached. He asked whether Sun-Diamond's position was akin to AT&T offering money out of a vague hope that the FCC would look kindly on the company.

``Here's $2 million. Think well of us in all you do in this office,'' Scalia said to laughter.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked Ray why a gift is illegal if it is not tied to some specific act by the official.

``It isn't baking brownies for a senator, or knitting a pair of socks for an official, is it?'' she asked.

Ray replied that the possibility of future favors to the company is enough.

Ray's boss, Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz, maintained throughout the nearly two dozen Espy-related cases that it was not necessary to prove that Espy ever did anything in return for gifts, and that lobbyists or companies did not have to expect specific favors as a result of their largesse.

Espy was acquitted in December of 30 charges related to gifts he accepted from Sun-Diamond, Tyson Foods and others.

Sun-Diamond was convicted of giving $5900 in illegal gratuities to Espy, including tickets to the U.S. Open, luggage, meals, a framed print and a Waterford crystal bowl.

A federal appeals court threw out the 1996 gratuities convictions on grounds the federal gratuities law requires a connection between a gift and official acts.

The case is U.S. vs. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 98-131.