John Paul Stevens

“ In § 203, which prohibits outside compensation for the performance of public service, Congress expressly covered advance requests or offers of compensation for services to be "rendered . . . at a time when [the recipient] is an officer or employee of the United States." [18] In both of these provisions Congress used unambiguous language to cover preemployment payments; the absence of comparable language in § 209 (a) indicates that Congress did not intend to broaden the pre-existing coverage of that provision. ”

“ Legislation designed to prohibit and to avoid potential conflicts of interest in the performance of governmental service is supported by the legitimate interest in maintaining the public's confidence in the integrity of the federal service. [20] Neither good faith, nor full disclosure, nor exemplary performance of public office will excuse the making or receipt of a prohibited payment. ”

“ Apart from the fact of the payments themselves, there is no charge in this case of any misconduct by any of the petitioners.
In 1986 the United States filed a civil complaint alleging that the payments had been made "to supplement each individual defendant's compensation as a federal employee" and that they "created a conflict of interest situation which induced the breach of the fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty [which] each individual defendant owed to the United States, as measured by 18 U.S.C. § 209 and/or the common law." App. 12. ”

“ It needs hundreds of occasional and intermittent consultants and part-time experts to help deal with problems of increasing complexity and technical difficulty. In short, we need to draw upon America's entire reservoir of talent and skill to help conduct our generation's most important business-the public business." Message from the President of the United States Relative to Ethical Conduct in the Government, H.R. Doc. ”

“ This reading neither changed the original scope of the statute nor engendered any controversy; in the entire period between 1917 and 1962, criticism focused instead on the vagueness of the reference to payments made "in connection with" the employee's service. [14] The fact that the legislative history of § 209 (a) explains the narrowing consequence of the elimination of these words, but is silent on the reason for eliminating "being a Government official or employee," is inconsistent with the view that Congress intended the latter change to broaden the coverage of the section. ”

“ These shifts required forgoing the higher salaries that each employee would have earned at Boeing and also severing all financial connection with the company. Thus, petitioner Paisley, who took early retirement to become Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Engineering and Systems-an office that requires confirmation by the United States Senate estimated that the financial cost to him of separating from Boeing would be approximately $825,000, including approximately $77,000 in lost stock options and $250,000 in lost retirement benefits. ”

“ And, third, because of these real risks, the arrangement has a generally unwholesome appearance that breeds suspicion and bitterness among fellow employees and other observers. The public interpretation is apt to be that if an outside party is paying a government employee and is not paying him for past services, he must be paying him for some current services to the payor during a time when his services are supposed to be devoted to the government." Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Conflict of Interest and Federal Service 211 (1960) . ”

“ First, the outside payor has a hold on the employee deriving from his ability to cut off one of the employee's economic lifelines. Second, the employee may tend to favor his outside payor even though no direct pressure is put on him to do so. ”

“ Boeing's severance payment to Paisley amounted to $183,000. [3] The comparable estimate of petitioner Crandon, who resigned to become a computer scientist for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was $150,000; his severance payment was $40,000. [4] The other three individual petitioners' payments were higher than Crandon's but lower than Paisley's. [5] Boeing paid the five departing employees a total of $485,000. [6]
None of the five individual petitioners was a Government employee at the time he received his severance payment. [7] Moreover, each payment was made unconditionally. ”