As it unanimously overturned Bob McDonnell’s corruption convictions Monday, the Supreme Court may have given a green light to politicians and their allies to trade access for money, according to legal experts and disappointed advocates for government ethics laws.

The ruling, which struck down the conviction of the former Virginia governor on the grounds that ordinary political favors such as arranging meetings aren’t sufficient to justify a bribery conviction, was pored over Monday by lawyers for a series of embattled politicians ranging from Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.).


"This dramatically narrows the ability of the Justice Department to prosecute corruption cases," said Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21. "There are all kinds of things public officials can do short of casting a vote or making a policy decision that are of enormous benefit to an individual and, in essence, become legalized bribery under this decision."

The court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, sought to avoid criminalizing acts politicians routinely do for donors and others, such as inviting them to meetings, connecting them with other officials or hosting them at parties.

However, Roberts' language was so sweeping that it appears to bless not only official meetings for donors, but the bizarre-sounding possibility of press secretaries selling interviews with their bosses.

“You could definitely charge for interviews,” said Scott Nelson of Public Citizen. "They're just completely optional things public officials do, so sure."

"This has opened up a can of worms that the court, in my view, did not pay careful attention to," Wertheimer added.

The decision is a huge relief for McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, who was also convicted by the same jury, with many experts predicting prosecutors will drop the case altogether.

"I don't know if the government's even going to retry him," said Nelson. "The court doesn't preclude it but makes it a pretty tough haul for them in this case."

In the near term, the decision's most direct impact beyond McDonnell and his wife could be on Menendez, who was indicted last year on charges that he did a variety of favors for a wealthy ophthalmologist who was a big campaign donor.

Prosecutors have not accused Menendez of voting for or against legislation on behalf of the donor, Salomon Melgen. Instead, the case alleges that the New Jersey senator repeatedly intervened with federal officials on the physician's behalf, pressing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to meet with Melgen about a Medicare dispute and urging State Department officials to grant visas for Melgen's girlfriends.

"It's a good day for Sen. Menendez," said Hampton Dellinger, a former North Carolina deputy attorney general now with the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner. "Anything beyond vetoes and votes becomes more difficult to prosecute after today."

Menendez's defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, did not respond to requests for comment. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the court ruling's possible impact on the case against Menendez.

It's unclear whether the ruling will benefit Blagojevich, in part because the justices have already turned aside two efforts to try to get them to take up his case. The former governor is serving a 14-year sentence for trying to sell the Senate seat vacated by Sen. Barack Obama when he was elected president.

Blagojevich is up for resentencing soon, which could allow another effort to get an appeals court or the Supreme Court involved.

"We have one more chance, if the governor wants another run at it," Blagojevich lawyer Len Goodman said in an interview.

In the decision Monday, the justices did not completely rule out prosecutors' trying to bring cases based on donors or gift-givers getting meetings with officials, but the court said the government would have to prove that the meetings were part of an effort to pressure others to make a favorable substantive decision, like giving a grant or issuing a beneficial rule.

"It allows for a great deal of activity that really sidelines the average person who can't give a Rolex, a Ferrari or throw a wedding for someone," said Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "It essentially acknowledges that business as usual in politics means money talks really loudly."

Other lawyers said some of the greatest fears about the ruling were exaggerated. For one thing, the court did not rule that donors have a right to buy meetings or that officials have a right to sell them. Instead, the justices said they would not interpret the federal bribery and "honest services fraud" statute to cover such conduct.

Taking gifts of more than a nominal amount is illegal for most federal officials and for many state officials. In McDonnell's case, the justices decided that in places like Virginia with lax ethics regulations, federal bribery laws won’t pick up the slack.

One of the more curious scenarios seemingly blessed by Monday's decision was broached at oral arguments in the case in April, where both Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan raised questions about whether paying an aide to get on a public official's schedule would amount to a bribe.

"Suppose ... you're not just a secretary, but your job was to manage the governor's schedule. You decided who met with him, you decided when, and that that's your job," Roberts said, seeming to frame a question on the point. "Anything that individual does, I suppose, would be an official act."

"Suppose that there were a scheduler for a governor or for the president or whatever, and that scheduler was selling meetings. So you would think that's part of her job?" Kagan asked.

McDonnell's lawyer, Noel Francisco, called that "a very close case."

But the court's opinion Monday doesn't directly address the scheduler scenario. Indeed, the decision's broad language seems to approve selling schedule slots to the highest bidder.

"Setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an ‘official act,'" Roberts wrote.

"There's little doubt that a lot of really problematic hypotheticals are not prohibited after this decision," Levinson, the Loyola professor, said. "We need not be surprised that voters feel completely marginalized."

Supporters of Monday's decision said conduct like McDonnell's need not always be addressed in the jury box but can instead be judged at the ballot box.

"I'm a big believer in: Leave it to the voters," said Curt Levey of the conservative group FreedomWorks. "If [McDonnell] ever decided to run for another office, the voters could decide. I'd much rather have that than perhaps overzealous and ambitious prosecutors deciding."