Summary

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia McCormick v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Finally, where the United States Code explicitly criminalizes conduct such as that alleged in the present case, it calls the crime bribery, not extortion-and like all bribery laws I am aware of (but unlike § 1951 and all other extortion laws I am aware of) it punishes not only the person receiving the payment but the person making it.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia McCormick v. United States — Opinion of the Court

As I understand its opinion, the Court would agree that these facts would constitute a violation of the Hobbs Act if the understanding that the money was a personal payment rather than a campaign contribution had been explicit rather than implicit and if the understanding that, in response to the payment, petitioner would endeavor to provide the payers with the specific benefit they sought had also been explicit rather than implicit. In my opinion there is no statutory requirement that illegal agreements, threats, or promises be in writing, or in any particular form.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia McCormick v. United States — Opinion of the Court

It is not illegal, in and of itself, for an elected legislator to solicit or accept legitimate campaign contributions, on behalf of himself or other legislators, from individuals who have a special interest in pending legislation. The solicitation or receipt of such contributions violates the federal extortion law only when the payment is wrongfully induced under color of official right.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature