* What is the difference between lobbying and bribery?
* What argument could the SLOC members make that the payments made do not fit the definition of an illegal bribe (under the FCPA)?
* What do you think is the appropriate punishment for the violation of ethical and legal principles?
* Should the remedies be limited to the expulsion of the members who violated those principles, or should the entire community be held responsible?
How would you like us to help you with this assignment?
What argument could the SLOC members make that the payments made do not fit the definition of an illegal bribe (under the FCPA)?
* What do you think is the appropriate punishment for the violation of ethical and legal principles?
* Should the remedies be limited to the expulsion of the members who violated those principles, or should the entire community be held responsible?
1. The Difference Between Lobbying and Bribery:
Lobbying refers to the act of attempting to influence policymakers, usually by advocating for a specific position on an issue or promoting a particular interest. It is a legitimate practice where individuals or organizations can express their opinions, provide information, and engage in discussions with lawmakers or government officials.
On the other hand, bribery involves offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting something of value with the intention to influence someone's actions in a dishonest or illegal way. Unlike lobbying, bribery is considered unethical and illegal, as it seeks to obtain illicit favors or advantages by corrupting the decision-making process.
2. Argument Regarding Payments and FCPA:
The SLOC (presumably referring to Salt Lake Organizing Committee) members may argue that the payments made do not fit the definition of an illegal bribe under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by providing justifications such as:
a) Genuine Services: They might claim that the payments were made for legitimate services rendered, such as consulting, advisory, or market research work, and not as a direct means to influence decision-making.
b) Lack of Intent: They could argue that there was no intention to corrupt or influence the officials, and the payments were made for other valid business purposes unrelated to obtaining unfair advantages.
c) Organizational Policies: They might assert that the payments were authorized within their organizational policies and complied with local laws, customs, or industry standards.
It's important to note that whether these arguments would hold up in court or under the FCPA would depend on the specific circumstances, evidence, and interpretations of the law.
3. Punishment for Violation of Ethical and Legal Principles:
Determining the appropriate punishment for the violation of ethical and legal principles would depend on several factors, including the severity of the offense, the impact on affected parties, and existing laws or guidelines.
Possible punishments could include:
a) Legal Consequences: If the violation involves breaking specific laws, individuals involved may face criminal charges, fines, probation, or imprisonment as determined by the judicial system.
b) Ethical Sanctions: In cases where ethical principles or codes of conduct are violated, disciplinary measures like suspension, termination of employment, or revocation of professional licenses may be appropriate.
c) Restitution: Depending on the harm caused, the violators might be required to compensate the affected parties financially or provide other forms of restitution.
It's essential to have a fair and objective process involving investigations, evidence, legal considerations, and the application of appropriate penalties to ensure justice is served.
4. Responsibility of the Entire Community:
Determining whether the entire community should be held responsible for the actions of a few individuals depends on the extent of their involvement, knowledge, or complicity.
If it can be shown that the violations were isolated incidents perpetrated by specific individuals without the knowledge or involvement of the broader community, it may not be fair or just to hold the entire community responsible. However, if there is evidence of systemic issues or widespread complicity, the community as a whole may bear some responsibility.
Each situation must be evaluated on its own merits, with careful consideration given to individual accountability while also addressing any underlying cultural, institutional, or governance shortcomings that may have enabled or contributed to the violations.