Summary

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens McCormick v. United States — Dissenting Opinion

Though the unlicensed doctors may have gotten no more than their due in the defendant's performance of his official duties, the defendant's receipt of money, if you find that to have occurred, for the performance of such acts is a misuse of office. When a public official accepts the payment for an implicit promise of fair treatment, if any such promise there were, there is an inherent threat that without the payment, the public official would exercise his discretion in an adverse manner.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens McCormick v. United States — Dissenting Opinion

And conversely, evidence that petitioner would have supported the legislation anyway is not a defense to the already completed crime. The thug who extorts protection money cannot defend on the ground that his threat was only a bluff because he would not have smashed the shopkeeper's windows even if the extortion had been unsuccessful.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens McCormick v. United States — Dissenting Opinion

Many public officials receive legitimate political contributions from individuals who, the official knows, are motivated by a general gratitude toward him because of his position on certain issues important to them, or even in the hope that the good will generated by such contributions will make the official more receptive to their cause.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature