United States v. Manzo (851 F. Supp. 2d 797, 2012)

OPINION

LINARES, District Judge.

Defendant Louis Manzo (“Defendant”) is charged with two counts of travel in interstate commerce to promote, carry on and facilitate bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3) and § 2 a misprision of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4. This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant’s omnibus pretrial motions filed respectively on September 27, 2011 and October 18, 2011 [Docket Entry Nos. 64 (“First Mot.”) and 66 (“Second Mot.”) ]. On January 26, 2012, this Court held a hearing on said motions, and disposed of two motions by mutual consent of the parties and reserved on others. As set forth on the record of said hearing, the Parties reached agreement that: (1) the Government will preserve the notes of FBI agents as requested in Defendant’s first Motion (Def. First Mot., at 39); and (2) the Government and the Defendant agree to cooperate regarding discovery requested by Defendant and reciprocal discovery requested by the Government (Def. First Mot., at 37-38). The Court reserved on the following motions: (1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss all counts of the Second Superseding Indictment (“Indictment”) on the grounds that actions attributed to Defendant did not violate the Travel Act; (2) Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Indictment entirely as violating Defendant’s Tenth Amendment rights; (3) Defendant’s motion to compel discovery and seeking an evidentiary hearing related to the grand jury proceedings; (4) and, finally, a motion by Defendant to dismiss the Indictment or appoint a special prosecutor based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The Parties supplemented their motion filings with the court’s permission on January 27, January 30, January 31, and February 6, 2012. The Court has considered the oral arguments presented at the January 26th hearing and the written submissions made in support of and in opposition to Defendant’s motions, including the aforementioned supplemental materials. For the reasons set forth below, this Court: (1) grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Second Superseding Indictment; (2) denies Defendant’s motion for discovery and an evidentiary hearing of the grand jury proceedings; and (3) dismisses all remaining motions as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant Louis Manzo was a candidate for mayor of Jersey City, New Jersey during elections held on May 12, 2009, in which he did not prevail. (Indictment, ¶ 1(a)). During the period of the Indictment, Defendant did not hold public office, nor does the Government allege that Defendant held a public position subsequent to the termination of his representation of the 31st Legislative District in the New Jersey General Assembly in 2008. (Id.).

It was during the period of Defendant’s candidacy for mayor that he was introduced to Solomon Dwek, a cooperating witness for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). Dwek was assisting the Government in a broader public corruption investigation by posing as a real estate developer looking for assistance in expediting his development projects through local government processes. Defendant was introduced to Mr. Dwek by Edward Cheatam, the then affirmative action officer for Hudson County and a Commissioner on the Jersey City Housing Authority in Jersey City, and Jack Shaw (now deceased), a political consultant based in Jersey City who was an acquaintance of Defendant Manzo. (Id., ¶ 1(d), (f)). The Indictment alleges two improper transactions arose from the introduction of Mr. Dwek to the Defendant and subsequent meetings at which, in consideration for his agreement to accept or his acceptance of a pecuniary benefit, Defendant promised future official assistance as mayor in: (1) obtaining certain development approvals on Mr. Dwek’s behalf in relation to a property located on Garfield Avenue in Jersey City (the “Garfield Development”); and (2) promoting Maher Khalil, an employee of the Jersey City Department of Health and Human Services and former member of the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment to a higher position within the Jersey City government (“Promotion Transaction”). (Id., ¶ 3). The Government alleges that the transactions occurred between January 26, 2009 and April 23, 2009 as follows.

On January 26, 2009, Mr. Cheatam, Mr. Khalil and Mr. Dwek met at a restaurant in Weehawken, New Jersey, where Mr. Khalil suggested that Mr. Dwek meet with Defendant in connection with approvals for Mr. Dwek’s purported real estate development in Jersey City. (Id., ¶ 4(a)). Mr. Cheatam advised that a meeting with Defendant could “cover” Mr. Dwek’s development interests in case Defendant were elected in the upcoming mayoral election. (Id.). At that time, Mr. Cheatam also cautioned that any such meeting between Mr. Dwek and Defendant had to occur outside of Jersey City since Mr. Cheatam could not openly support Defendant’s mayoral candidacy. (Id.).

Mr. Cheatam and Mr. Dwek met again on February 16, 2009, at a restaurant in Jersey City during which meeting they discussed paying Defendant “cash” in exchange for his future official assistance in favor of Mr. Dwek’s purported development projects in Jersey City. (Id., ¶ 4(b)). Mr. Cheatam and Mr. Dwek met the following day, on February 17, 2009, when they were joined by Mr. Shaw. (Id., ¶ 4(c)). At that meeting, the parties continued to discuss Mr. Dwek’s purported development interests in Jersey City and the arranging of a meeting with Defendant to give him cash as “insurance” “for his anticipated official assistance, action and influence” in the event he were to be elected mayor. (Id.). Mr. Shaw and Mr. Cheatam then agreed to accept for themselves an equal amount in cash from Mr. Dwek as Mr. Dwek paid to Defendant. (Id.).

Count I of the Indictment is based on Defendant’s first meeting with Mr. Dwek which occurred on February 23, 2009, at a restaurant in Staten Island, New York, where the parties were joined by Defendant’s brother, Ronald Manzo, and Mr. Cheatam. (Id., ¶ 4(d)). The transcript of the meeting indicates that, prior to Defendant’s arrival, Mr. Cheatam told Mr. Dwek that he “mentioned to Lou ... Manzo that I want Maher for that position,” that Mr. Dwek confirmed, “Yeah, yeah. Okay, yeah, to bump him,” and Mr. Cheatam said, “Right. He said he has no problem with it.” (PI. Jan. 26, 2012 Letter, Ex. A, Feb. 23, 2009 Tr., 16:20-17:1). The following conversation confirmed that the promotion discussed was that of Mr. Khalil by Defendant to the position of Director of the Department of Health and Human Services, and that there would be “no problem. We’ll throw the other guy out.” (Id., 17:11-14). Once Defendant and Mr. Ronald Manzo arrived, Mr. Cheatam allegedly explained to them that he and Mr. Dwek were meeting with them so that they would be “favorable” towards Mr. Dwek’s plans for the Garfield Development. Specifically, Mr. Cheatam stated that Mr. Dwek would make contributions to Defendant’s mayoral campaign in exchange for expedited development “approvals” if Defendant won the mayoral election. (Id., ¶ 4(d)).

After Defendant and Mr. Ronald Manzo left the meeting, Mr. Cheatam confirmed that Mr. Dwek would bring $10,000 cash to the following meeting to be paid to Mr. Ronald Manzo. (Id., ¶ 4(f)). On February 25, 2009, Mr. Ronald Manzo met with Mr. Cheatam and Mr. Dwek at a restaurant in Staten Island where Mr. Cheatam coordinated with Mr. Dwek to receive the cash payment intended for Defendant which he would then give to Mr. Ronald Manzo. (Id., ¶ 4(g)). The parties discussed the concealment of Mr. Dwek’s contemplated cash payments, and Mr. Ronald Manzo instructed Mr. Dwek to refrain from openly discussing payment matters with the Defendant, but rather in any future discussions with Defendant, Mr. Dwek should refer to both the approvals and the promotion transaction as “opportunities.” (Id., ¶ 4(g)-(i)). Finally, at the end of the meeting, Mr. Cheatam, in Mr. Ronald Manzo’s presence, accepted an envelope containing approximately $10,000 cash from Mr. Dwek, and Mr. Dwek advised Mr. Ronald Manzo that Mr. Dwek was making an “investment” in Defendant and Mr. Ronald Manzo in consideration for Mr. Dwek’s development approvals. (Id., ¶4©). On the same day, Mr. Cheatam told Mr. Dwek that Mr. Ronald Manzo was “happy” with the $10,000 payment, and confirmed the use of a code word to discuss the development approvals that Mr. Dwek sought. (Id., ¶ 4(k)). Mr. Cheatam also stated that he had spoken with Defendant and Mr. Ronald Manzo, and that they had indicated that they wanted additional money in exchange for Defendant’s future assistance with Mr. Dwek’s real estate development interests and in connection with the Promotion Transaction. (Id.).

Count II of the Indictment is based on Defendant’s second meeting with Mr. Dwek which occurred on March 4, 2009, at a restaurant in Staten Island, New York, where the parties were joined again by Mr. Ronald Manzo, and Mr. Cheatam. (Id., ¶ 4(1)). Before Defendant and Mr. Ronald Manzo arrived, Mr. Cheatam confirmed with Mr. Dwek that Mr. Ronald Manzo received the $10,000 payment, and indicated that Defendant and Mr. Ronald Manzo would accept $7,500 in cash in consideration for Defendant’s official support of the Promotion Transaction as well as an additional $7,500 cash to be paid once Defendant got elected. (Id.). After Defendant and Mr. Ronald Manzo arrived, the parties discussed their agreement, and Defendant confirmed receipt of the $10,000 payment, further agreeing to accept more money from Mr. Dwek at a later date, including after the mayoral election, in exchange for the Promotion Transaction and “approvals” relating to real estate developments. (Id.).

On the following day, Mr. Ronald Manzo met with Mr. Dwek and Mr. Cheatam at a restaurant in Staten Island, New York, and during that meeting, Mr. Ronald Manzo reassured Mr. Dwek that he and Defendant were “on the team” with respect to future development approvals, and Mr. Dwek informed the other two parties that he had spoken to Mr. Khalil to let him know that, after the election, Mr. Khalil would be promoted within Jersey City government. (Id., ¶ 4(o)). At the end of the meeting, the parties walked to the parking lot, and at Mr. Ronald Manzo’s direction and in his presence, Mr. Cheatam accepted an envelope containing $7,500 in cash from Mr. Dwek. (Id., ¶ 4(p)). Mr. Dwek concurrently asked Mr. Ronald Manzo to “make sure my man is taken care of,” and Mr. Ronald Manzo replied in the affirmative. (Id.). Mr. Dwek further informed them that the $7,500 payment was only half of the $15,000 payment, and that the remaining $7,500 balance would be paid after Mr. Khalil’s appointment, to which Mr. Ronald Manzo replied, “right.” (Id.). Following that conversation, Mr. Cheatam spoke with Mr. Dwek on the phone, confirming that he had given $7,500 to Mr. Ronald Manzo, and in response, Mr. Ronald Manzo stated that, once Defendant was elected, it was “carte blanche all the way.” (Id., ¶ 4(q)).

Finally, on April 23, 2009, Mr. Ronald Manzo met with Mr. Shaw, Mr. Cheatam and Mr. Dwek at a restaurant in Bayonne, New Jersey, and during that meeting, Mr. Dwek informed Mr. Ronald Manzo that he intended to submit an application for zoning approval on the Garfield Development shortly after the election, in July 2009. (Id., ¶ 4(r)). Mr. Ronald Manzo nodded in the affirmative when asked to ensure that the approval would be expedited, and Mr. Dwek told him that he would provide another cash payment to Mr. Cheatam for the benefit of Defendant in the amount of $10,000 cash after the mayoral election in exchange for Defendant’s official action, assistance and influence. (Id., ¶ 4(s)). After the meeting, Mr. Cheatam met privately with Mr. Dwek in the restaurant parking lot and gave him an envelope containing $10,000 which Mr. Cheatam accepted to give to Defendant and Mr. Ronald Manzo to “[m]ake sure he gets my stuff expedited.” (Id., ¶ 4(u)). After Mr. Cheatam accepted the $10,000 payment, he brought Mr. Ronald Manzo from inside the restaurant back to Mr. Dwek, and Mr. Ronald Manzo accepted an envelope containing the $10,000 cash from Mr. Cheatam. (Id., ¶ 4(v)). Later that day, Mr. Cheatam called Mr. Shaw, and when Mr. Shaw asked what was done for “Manzo,” Mr. Cheatam responded, “10.” (Id., ¶ 4(w)).

Based on these facts, the Indictment alleges that Defendant knowingly and intentionally traveled in interstate commerce with intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on of an unlawful activity, namely bribery, by promising to expedite approvals on the Garfield Development and to promote Mr. Khalil within Jersey City government in exchange for cash payments-$10,000 on February 25, 2009, $7,500 on March 5, 2009, and $10,000 on April 23, 2009. The Indictment also alleges that Defendant, having knowledge of the commission of felonies by Mr. Cheatam and Mr. Ronald Manzo in violation of the Travel Act and N.J.S.A. § 2C:27-2, concealed such knowledge and failed to make known the same as soon as possible to a judge or other person in civil authority under the United States.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1), an indictment must “be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” Fed. R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1). An indictment is deemed sufficient so long as it “(1) contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, (2) sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, and (3) allows the defendant to show with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction in the event of a subsequent prosecution.” United States v. Vitillo, 490 F.3d 314, 321 (3d Cir.2007). “Moreover, no greater specificity than the statutory language is required so long as there is sufficient factual orientation to permit the defendant to prepare his defense and to invoke double jeopardy in the event of a subsequent prosecution.” United States v. Kemp 500 F.3d 257, 280 (3d Cir.2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

“In determining whether an indictment “contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged,” a district court may look for more than a mere ‘recit[ation] in general terms [of] the essential elements of the offense.’ ” United States v. Bergrin, 650 F.3d 257, 264 (3d Cir.2011) (citing United States v. Panamito, 277 F.3d 678, 685 (3d Cir.2002)). A district court must find that “a charging document fails to state an offense if the specific facts alleged in the charging document fall beyond the scope of the relevant criminal statute, as a matter of statutory interpretation.” Id, at 264-65 (citations omitted). Evidentiary questions such as credibility determinations and the weighing of proof should not occur at the motion to dismiss stage. United States v. DeLaurentis, 230 F.3d 659, 660-61 (3d Cir.2000). “In considering a defense motion to dismiss an indictment, the district court accepts as true the factual allegations set forth in the indictment.” United States v. Besmajian, 910 F.2d 1153, 1154 (3d Cir.1990) (citation omitted). With this framework in mind, the Court turns now to Defendant’s motions to dismiss the Indictment and the specific question of whether the Indictment sufficiently alleges violations of the Travel Act and Misprision of Felony.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss the Travel Act Counts of the Indictment

1. Alleged Conduct as a Predicate Offense under the Travel Act

The Indictment charges Defendant with violating the Travel Act by traveling in interstate channels of commerce with intent to solicit, accept and agree to accept cash payments as bribes, unlawful pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2. In accordance with the canon of constitutional avoidance, the Court will narrow the statutory language at issue so as to avoid confronting a statutory clash with the Constitution, in this case, the Tenth Amendment. See, e.g., Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandéis, J., concurring) (articulating the principle of court avoidance in deciding constitutional issues where there are noneonstitutional grounds for a decision); United States v. Torres, 383 F.3d 92, 102 (3d Cir.2004). Before assessing whether the conduct alleged in the Indictment may or may not constitute “unlawful activity” under New Jersey law, the Court will first assess whether the Travel Act contemplates such conduct as constituting a predicate act of bribery, generically understood, in violation of the Travel Act. Thus, the first issue before the Court is whether a candidate for public office’s acceptance of a benefit in exchange for future official assistance, action and influence in municipal government matters is a proper Travel Act predicate offense as a generic matter. Since the Court finds that it is not, it need not address Defendant’s Tenth Amendment claims regarding the unconstitutionality of the Travel Act as applied to Defendant. The Court also need not address Defendant’s arguments regarding the Government’s manufacture of jurisdiction under the Travel Act by introducing the element of interstate travel into Defendant’s conduct since no Travel Act violation has been found to exist.

The Government contends that Defendant’s conduct as alleged in the Indictment constituted the reception of a bribe unlawful under New Jersey’s bribery statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2. (PI. First Opp’n Br., at 10, 13-17). That statute provides, in relevant part, as follows:

A person is guilty of bribery if he directly or indirectly ... solicits, accepts or agrees to accept from another: (a) any benefit as consideration for a decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or exercise of discretion of a public servant; or ... (d) any benefit as consideration for the performance of official duties.

It is no defense to prosecution under this section that' a person whom the actor sought to, influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office, or lacked jurisdiction, or for any other reason.

N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2. “Public servant” under the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice is defined for the purposes of bribery and corruption as “any officer or employee of government, including legislators and judges, and any person participating as juror, advisor, consultant or otherwise, in performing a governmental function, but the term does not include witnesses.” N.J.S.A. § 2C:27-l(g).

Defendant responds by making a series of arguments regarding the application of the Travel Act to the conduct alleged in the Indictment. First, Defendant claims that the actions attributable to Defendant did not violate the Travel Act since his conduct does not fall within the type of activity contemplated by the statute. (Def. First Mot., at 19). Specifically, Defendant contends that Defendant’s conduct was not a “misuse of public office” as he was never elected to one. (Id., at 20-22). Second, Defendant asserts that Defendant’s alleged conduct does not come within the proscriptions of the state bribery statute since the language of that statute: (1) presumes entitlement to office, which Defendant did not have; (2) does not proscribe future action requiring the satisfaction of a condition precedent; and (3) does not include candidates in its definition of “public servant.” (Id. at 17-19). In order to assess the persuasiveness of Defendant’s Travel Act claims, the Court will consider and review the plain language and intent of 18 U.S.C. § 1952 and case law defining and interpreting the generic definition of bribery in order to determine whether a candidate never elected to public office comes within the scope of the statute. The Court will address Defendant’s further arguments regarding whether Defendant’s conduct may constitute “unlawful activity” in violation of the New Jersey bribery statute in the following section, Section 2.

a. The Plain Language and Intent of 18 U.S.C. § 1952

The Travel Act provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a) Whoever travels in interstate ... commerce or uses ... any facility in interstate ... commerce, with intent to ... promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity, and thereafter performs or attempts to perform ... an act [so] described ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both....

(b) As used in this section (i) “unlawful activity” means ... (2) extortion, bribery, or arson in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States.

18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)-(b). There are three basic elements required to establish a violation of the Travel Act: (1) interstate travel or use of an interstate facility; (2) with intent to promote, direct, or manage unlawful activity; and (3) a subsequent overt act in furtherance of the unlawful activity. See United States v. Wander, 601 F.2d 1251 (3d Cir.1979). The Travel Act incorporates into federal law a given state’s substantive law of bribery and extortion crimes at issue in a particular prosecution, even if those laws contain more expansive definitions of said crimes than those found at common law. See United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 47 (3d Cir.1976).

The legislative history of the Travel Act reveals its primary purpose as a means to aid States in the enforcement of their laws by enabling the targeting and prosecution of participants in organized crime who avoided State prosecution by operating their criminal enterprises from outside a State’s boundaries. See Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 811, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 28 L.Ed.2d 493 (1971) (citing S.Rep. No. 644, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 2-3 [1961]). The 1961 Senate Report which endorsed the adoption of the Travel Act quoted from Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s submission letter as follows:

Over the years an ever-increasing portion of our national resources has been diverted into illicit channels. Because many rackets are conducted by highly organized syndicates whose influence extends over State and National borders, the Federal Government should come to the aid of local law enforcement authorities in an effort to stem such activity.

United States v. Nardello, 393 U.S. 286, 291, 89 S.Ct. 534, 21 L.Ed.2d 487 (1969) (quoting S.Rep. No. 644, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 4 [1961]).

The courts have provided two general principles to guide their interpretation of the Travel Act as it comes up against State law enforcement, each principle attempting to ensure the balance between federal and State authority by establishing clearer parameters to the limits of federal intrusion on the police powers of the States: (1) the Supreme Court and the lower courts have circumscribed the breadth of the interstate nexus to require more than mere criminal activity “at times patronized by persons from another state,” cf. Rewis, 401 U.S. at 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056; and (2) the Supreme Court and the lower courts have evolved standards to evaluate conduct alleged to be in violation of the Travel Act in terms of unlawful conduct as defined and criminalized under State law. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 50, 100 S.Ct. 311, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979); Nardello, 393 U.S. at 295, 89 S.Ct. 534 (alleging a State violation which falls within the generic category of a predicate offense is adequate to charge a violation of the Travel Act). Specifically, while it is clear that conduct charged as a Travel Act violation — in this case, conduct allegedly involving bribery — must actually be criminal under the laws of the relevant State, the specific label a State affixes to said conduct is irrelevant as long as that conduct fits within traditional, generic notions of bribery. Id. The Supreme Court has instructed that, when tensions emerge between how a State may define a bribery offense and the way bribery is generically understood, courts must keep in mind the following: “Congress would certainly recognize that an expansive Travel Act would alter sensitive federal-state relationships, could overextend limited federal police resources, and might well produce situations in which the geographic origin of [those charged], a matter of happenstance, would transform relatively minor state offenses into federal felonies.” Rewis, 401 U.S. at 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056. Unlike RICO, which Congress specifically directed to be “liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purpose,” see Forsythe, 560 F.2d at 1135— 36, and the Hobbs Act, courts have instructed that the Travel Act be narrowly construed in the context of maintaining a delicate balance between the powers of the federal and State governments. See, e.g., Rewis, 401 U.S. at 811-12, 91 S.Ct. 1056; United States v. Hathaway, 534 F.2d 386, 397-398 (1st Cir.1976) (“In contrast to the broad interpretation given to the Hobbs Act, the Supreme Court has indicated that the Travel Act is to be read in a narrower and more restricted fashion”); United States v. Nader, 542 F.3d 713, 721-22 (9th Cir.2008) (“The Travel Act establishes only concurrent federal jurisdiction over what are already state or local crimes.... The federal government cannot usurp state authority via the Travel Act because a state must first decide that the conduct at issue is illegal”).

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals also provides specific guidance as to how courts should assess state law predicate acts in the context of federal violations such as those proscribed under the Travel Act and RICO: “the test for determining whether the charged act fit into the generic category of the predicate offense [in this case, bribery] is whether the indictment charges a type of activity generally known or characterized in the proscribed category.” United States v. Forsythe, 560 F.2d 1127 1137 (3d Cir.1977). While the Third Circuit has found that “conduct prohibited by the relevant New Jersey bribery statute [the predecessor statute to N.J.S.A. § 2C:27-2] easily comes within the generic term bribery,” the relevant New Jersey bribery statute does not on its face proscribe the exchange of a pecuniary benefit in consideration for future official assistance, action and influence in municipal government matters if that exchange is done by a candidate for public office who never gets elected. See Dansker, 537 F.2d at 47. Therefore, in the case at bar, the Court must assess whether the kind of conduct alleged in the Government’s Indictment may be deemed to be encompassed within the generic definition of bribery. In making the determination of whether the type of activity alleged in the Indictment is “generally known or characterized” as bribery, the Court will look to: (1) precedent defining the parameters of the generic definition of bribery; (2) any broader proscription in New Jersey law of the conduct alleged in the Indictment not incorporated into the specific predicate statute of N.J.S.A. § 2C:27-2; (3) precedent in New Jersey law of enforcing its bribery statutes against candidates for public office who do not get elected; and (4) the common law definition of bribery and other state statutes’ inclusion of candidates for public office, subsequently elected or not, in the bribery statutes of other States.

b. The Generic Definition of Bribery

(i) Precedent Defining Bribery Genetically

In determining whether the generic definition of bribery incorporates acts purportedly committed by a candidate for public office who was never elected to office, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Nardello and Perrin are instructive, as are the cases which interpreted those decisions, specifically: (1) United States v. Dansker and United States v. Forsythe from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals; and (2) this Court’s ruling and reasoning in United States v. Parlavecchio. These cases analyzed whether the alleged conduct in the respective indictments or for which defendants were convicted fell within the generic terms of “extortion” or “bribery” as used in the Travel Act. A brief overview of these cases is a proper starting point for this Court’s analysis of the parameters of and sources for a generic definition of bribery.

In Nardello, defendants were charged with traveling in interstate commerce on three separate occasions to participate in a “shakedown” operation whereby individuals were allegedly lured into compromising situations involving homosexuality and were then threatened with exposure unless their silence was purchased. 393 U.S. at 287, 89 S.Ct. 534. The district court dismissed the indictments on the basis that, in Pennsylvania, while the offense of “blackmail” did not require a defendant to be a public official, the offense of “extortion” as titled in the criminal code required that the accused be a public official. Since the defendants were not public officials, the court reasoned, the indictment was defective. On appeal, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the Travel Act’s prohibition on travel in interstate commerce with intent to carry on “extortion” in violation of the laws of the State in which committed, applied to extortionate conduct classified as “blackmail” in the applicable State penal code. Id. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the district court in finding that it did, and held as follows: (1) the provisions of the Travel Act were not limited to the common-law meaning of extortion as involving only corrupt acts by a public official; (2) the Travel Act applied to extortionate conduct classified as “blackmail” rather than “extortion” in the applicable State penal code, and the proper inquiry was not the manner in which a State classifies its criminal prohibitions, but rather whether the particular state involved prohibited the extortionate activity charged; and (3) the alleged conduct of the defendants in the case at bar fell within the generic term “extortion” as used in the Travel Act.

The Court based its holding on its assessment of: (1) the purposes of the Travel Act; and (2) the broader scope of prohibited extortionate conduct under the relevant State’s laws. Regarding the purposes of the Travel Act, the Court found that it would violate said purposes to allow the same conduct to be a Travel Act offense in one State which incorporated the crime of blackmail into the crime of extortion under the title of “extortion,” but not in other States where the two crimes are classified differently under different titles of their respective criminal codes. Id., at 294-95, 89 S.Ct. 534. Therefore, in looking to the broader scope of prohibited conduct in the State of Pennsylvania, the Court asserted that “the inquiry is not the manner in which States classify their criminal prohibitions but whether the particular State involved prohibits the extortionate activity charged.” Id. Since Pennsylvania prohibited blackmail as done by private individuals and extortion as done by public officials, the Court held that, “[although only private individuals are involved, the indictment encompasses a type of activity generally known as extortionate since money was to be obtained from the victim by virtue of fear and threats of exposure .... [We] thus conclude that the acts for which appellees have been indicted fall within the generic term extortion as used in the Travel Act.” Id., at 296, 89 S.Ct. 534.

The Supreme Court expanded the definition of “bribery” under the Travel Act when it held in Perrin that the commercial bribery of private employees prohibited by Louisiana’s commercial bribery statute was within the meaning of “bribery ... in violation of the laws of the State in which committed” under the Travel Act. See generally, Perrin, 444 U.S. 37, 100 S.Ct. 311. In that case, Vincent Perrin and four codefendants had been convicted, inter alia, for Travel Act violations for their participation in an exchange of confidential geological exploration data stolen from a private employer in consideration for a percentage of profits in a new oil corporation created to exploit the stolen information. Id., at 37, 100 S.Ct. 311. In reaching its holdings in that case, the Court reviewed: (1) the purposes of the Travel Act; (2) the evolution of the common law definition of bribery from early common law through the present; and (8) state statutes addressing commercial bribery and bribery as committed by private individuals. Based on a detailed assessment of these three sources, the Court held that: (1) the generic meaning of bribery included bribes given and received by private individuals; and (2) “bribery” in the Travel Act encompassed “conduct in violation of state commercial bribery statutes” even if the narrower, common-law definition of bribery did not. Id., at 50,100 S.Ct. 311.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals considered the generic definition of bribery under RICO and the Travel Act in United States v. Dansker and United States v. Forsythe. In Dansker, the Third Circuit reviewed, inter alia, defendant Nathan Serota’s Travel Act conviction predicated on New Jersey’s predecessor bribery statute to the N.J.S.A. § 2C:27-2. See generally. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40 (3d Cir.1976). During the period of the indictment, Serota was the vice-chairman of the Fort Lee Parking Authority who resided in an expensive condominium apartment in Fort Lee near the site of his co-defendants’ proposed project to build a large shopping center. Id., at 45. That site had been zoned as noncommercial, and when Serota’s co-defendants attempted to get a zoning variance to permit construction, Serota publicly resisted by: paying for advertisements in local newspapers to demonstrate his opposition to the project; helping to form a citizens’ group to bring lawsuits against the developers; organizing and financing a slate of candidates for the Borough Council who made the proposed complex a central issue in the upcoming elections; regularly attending hearings before the Board of Adjustment; and actively participating in said hearings. Id. Ultimately, however, Serota reached an agreement with the project developers whereby Serota would sell his Fort Lee apartment, valued at $500,000, to the developers for $900,000, with an additional $200,000 in cash on the date his apartment sold, in return for agreeing to cease his opposition to the project and take active steps to secure its approval in a modified form. Id.

While the Third Circuit found in Dansker that New Jersey’s predecessor bribery statute to the N.J.S.A. § 2C:27-2 “easily comes within the generic term bribery,” it reversed Serota’s conviction on the ground that his conduct did not violate New Jersey law. Id., at 46. The Court generically defined bribery as “conduct which is intended, at least by the alleged briber, as an assault on the integrity of a public office or an official action.... The recipient must agree to utilize whatever apparent influence he might possess to somehow corrupt a public office or an official act.” Id., at 48. The lines drawn in Dansker fall emphatically on the distinction between actual and apparent ability to influence a public office or an official act, not on the distinction between actual present and future ability to so influence. Specifically, the Court found that there were two requirements to establishing a violation of the New Jersey bribery statute, a statute which it found to fall within the generic understanding of bribery: “(a) that the alleged recipient, whether he be a public official or not, possessed at least the apparent ability to influence the particular public action involved; and (b) that he agreed to exert that influence in a manner which would undermine the integrity of that public action.” Id., at 49 (emphasis added). With respect to the first requirement, the Court clarified why the evidence adduced was insufficient to sustain Serota’s conviction: “although it is clear that Serota was a public official, the government failed to produce any evidence whatsoever indicating that he had any ability, actual or apparent, to influence official decisions concerning the project in his official capacity, or that the alleged bribers believed he could do so by virtue of his public office.” Id., at 49-50 (emphasis added). In all references made to Serota’s actual or apparent influence, the Court concentrates exclusively on the actual or apparent ability of the defendant at the moment of exchange: that the government would need to show that Serota “possessed” when receiving the bribe an apparent ability, or that he could “influence,” through actual or apparent authority when the agreement was reached, an official act. It thus appears that the Court only contemplated within the generic definition of bribery the ways in which bribe givers and bribe receivers structurally situated themselves in relation to influence on public action based on the actual or perceived authority a given bribe receiver had at the time of receipt, even if the exercise of the influence was to occur in the future or over time. After a thorough review of state case law interpreting the New Jersey bribery statute, the Court held that, since: (1) Serota was not paid monies because of his status as vice-chairman of the Fort Lee Parking Authority; and (2) the government did not establish that he was acting in a manner other than that permissible for any private citizen in attempting to influence official actions with respect to the project, Serota did not engage in conduct that would corrupt the activities of the Board of Adjustment. Id., at 50-51.

The Third Circuit elaborated on the generic definition of bribery as a predicate offense to a federal crime in Forsythe. The specific question before the Court in that case was, inter alia, whether the district court had properly dismissed indictments against magistrate and constable defendants alleged to be involved in a broader scheme on the part of a bail bond agency to bribe magistrates, constables, court employees and law enforcement officials in return for referrals of defendants brought before the magistrates for the setting of bail. See, generally, Forsythe, 560 F.2d 1127. The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal in part on the basis that several offenses alleged in the indictment fit within the generic category of bribery, specifically: (1) common law bribery; and (2) “practice or occupation of corrupt solicitation” as proscribed in separate provisions of the Pennsylvania criminal code from the bribery statute proper. Id., at 1137-38. In so doing, the Third Circuit set forth the appropriate test, stated infra, regarding how a court must determine whether charged acts fit within the generic category of the predicate offense: “whether the indictment charges a type of activity generally known or characterized in the proscribed category, namely, any act or threat involving bribery.” Id., at 1137.

Finally, in United States v. Parlavecchio, this Court considered whether the indictments of two employees of the Board of Education sufficiently alleged bribery as a predicate offense under New Jersey law for violations of the Travel Act. See, generally, 903 F.Supp. 788 (D.N.J.1995). In that case, the defendants were alleged to have purchased a building in Newark, New Jersey, which they, then leased back to their employer, the Board of Education. Id., at 789. However, once the Board perceived a conflict of interest and insisted that defendants divest themselves of any interest in the building, the defendants purportedly arranged a scheme to conceal their interest and represented to the Board that they had relinquished said interest. Id., at 790. In fact,, the indictments alleged, the defendants sold their shares in the building to relatives and took back a mortgage, thus continuing to receive rental payments that the Board continued to pay to them. Id. In finding that this alleged conduct was not sufficient to constitute generic bribery, this Court reviewed the requirements under Nardello, Perrin, Dansker and Forsythe, and held “the, traditional popular definition of bribery does not encompass defendants’ alleged conduct.” Id., at 792. Specifically, the Court found that the language in Dansker could not be construed “to expand the generic definition of bribery to include conduct which never even contemplated a traditional briber/bribee relationship. Thus, although the conduct alleged by the government in this case may constitute an ‘assault on the integrity of a public office’ in a certain sense, this does not make it bribery under Dansker.” Id., at 793. In so finding, the Court elaborated on the nature of the traditional donor/do-nee relationship as follows: “Although it is not'a necessary element to the crime that all the ‘players’ in an attempted bribe intend to participate, the verb ‘to bribe’ is a transitive one; a briber bribes, or attempts to bribe, or plans to bribe, someone. Defendants’ alleged conduct simply does not fit this model.... The transaction at issue was between defendants and the Board, and it is impossible to assign the traditional roles of ‘briber’ and ‘bribee’ between them.” Id., at 792-93.

This Court, based on a review of the aforementioned case law, can therefore draw the following principles in its determination of whether the conduct alleged in the Indictment is of “a type of activity generally known or characterized in the proscribed category”: (1) if the alleged conduct of a defendant falls within the generic term “bribery” as used in the Travel Act, it is a proper predicate offense for a Travel Act violation; (2) Congress did not limit the definition of “bribery” in the Travel Act to its common-law meaning of bribery (as involving, for example, only corrupt acts by a public official); (3) the proper inquiry by the Court is not the manner in which New Jersey classifies the criminal prohibition of bribery, but rather whether New Jersey prohibits the activity charged; (4) in engaging in that inquiry, the Court should look to the purposes of the Travel Act, the evolution of the common law definition of bribery, and State statutes addressing bribery; and (5) in looking at these sources, the ultimate test that the Court should employ is whether the conduct alleged is “generally known or characterized” as an act or threat involving bribery. Regarding the substantive content of the generic definition of bribery, the Court adduces the following generalizations from the case law: (1) the generic meaning of bribery includes bribes given and received by private individuals; (2) no distinction should be made between the actual and apparent ability a bribe receiver possessed at the time of exchange to influence official action or public office; and (3) the generic definition of bribery must include a traditional donor/donee relationship.

The Court will now consider the specific definition of bribery as put forward by the Government in this case, and having already reviewed the purposes of the Travel Act, will consider whether, even if New Jersey law does not specifically classify candidates within the class of persons as to whom bribery is prohibited under N.J.S.A. § 2C:27-2, the activity charged in the Indictment is nevertheless prohibited under New Jersey statutes and common law. Thereafter, the Court will consider the inclusion of candidates in bribery prohibitions under common law more generally, reviewing the evolution of common law definitions of bribery and all State bribery statutes relating to candidates. As is explained below, the Court is convinced, after a thorough review of New Jersey law, common law, and State statutory definitions of bribery, that while the conduct alleged in the Indictment is reprehensible, it cannot be deemed “generally known or characterized” as conduct proscribed on the basis of bribery prohibitions generieally conceived.

(ii) Proscribed Conduct of Unelected Candidates under New Jersey Law

Under Nardello and subsequent case law cited infra, a predicate act need not be classified under a State bribery statute as “bribery” for it to serve as a proper predicate act for a Travel Act violation. See, e.g. Nardello, 393 U.S. at 295, 89 S.Ct. 534 (“the inquiry is not the manner in which States classify their criminal prohibitions but whether the particular State involved prohibits the extortionate activity charged”). Therefore, if New Jersey law as a general matter prohibits the acceptance of a benefit in exchange for the performance of a favor in public office if such an acceptance were made by a candidate who never actually attains public office, the Court could construe the conduct alleged in the Indictment as a proper predicate act under a broader understanding of bribery prohibited under New Jersey law. Since New Jersey law does not prohibit such conduct either under its bribery statute or under broader proscriptions of solicitation, however, the Court finds that Defendant’s conduct as alleged does not violate the Travel Act.

As explained in fuller detail below, New Jersey’s bribery statute does not on its face incorporate candidates unelected to office within the class to whom the statute applies. While the Government does not specify under which provision of the statute Defendant’s alleged conduct is proscribed — § 2C:27-2(a) or 27-2(d) — the Court finds that neither includes candidates for public office who were never elected. Specifically, § 2C:27-2(a) prohibits the solicitation, acceptance or agreement to accept a benefit as consideration for a “decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or exercise of discretion of a public servant, party official or voter on any public issue or in any public election.” N.J.S.A. § 2C:27-2(a). In N.J.S.A. § 2C:27-1(g), “public servant” is defined as “any officer or employee of government, including legislators and judges, and any person participating as juror, advisor, consultant or otherwise, in performing a governmental function, but the term does not include witnesses.” N.J.S.A. § 2C:27-l(g). A candidate for public office, whether elected or not, is not included within that definition, and the definition is clear that it applies only to those officers or employees of government “in performing a governmental function” stated in the present progressive tense, indicating ongoing action happening at the time the stated offense occurs. Regarding the other designations, Defendant is not charged as a party official or as a voter. Section 2C:27-2(d) prohibits the solicitation, acceptance or agreement to accept any benefit “as consideration for the performance of official duties,” but since the conduct alleged in the Indictment did not reach Defendant’s performance of official duties as Mayor of Jersey City, and since a candidate cannot perform official duties until elected, the Court does not find that this provision on its face applies to candidates that are never elected to public office.

Much of the Government’s argument in interpreting the statute rests on the qualifying provision in the statute which states, “It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office, or lacked jurisdiction, or for any other reason.” N.J.S.A. § 2C:27-2; see PL First Opp’n Br., at 10-13. However, in strictly interpreting that language of the provision, it is clear to the Court that the language addresses two distinct parties: the person whom the actor sought to influence, and the actor himself. The “actor” is presumably the individual prosecuted under the statute — in this case, Defendant Louis Manzo — and substituting the named Defendant with the term “actor” in the provision indicates that the provision was intended to exclude any “not qualified to act” defenses as made by bribe givers, rather than bribe receivers. This accords with the legislative history of the statute, annotated commentary on the statute, case law in New Jersey and the model jury instructions drafted for the statute, as will be discussed in detail below. Absent a clear statement from the New Jersey legislature that candidates were within the designated class of persons to whom the statute applies, the Court is required under the rule of lenity to abstain from expanding the scope of criminal liability. See, e.g., United States v. Edmonds, 80 F.3d 810, 821 (3d Cir.1996) (stating that the rule of lenity “ensures there is fair warning of the boundaries of criminal conduct and that legislatures, not courts, define criminal liability”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

The Government neither cites to any case law in New Jersey which has interpreted the instant bribery statute or the predecessor statute as applying to unelected candidates, nor does it cite to other statutes in New Jersey which could be circumscribed within the generic definition of bribery that prohibit exchanges of benefits for political favors on the part of candidates. A thorough review of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice indicates no references to candidates for public office in the Code, including all provisions listed under Part 4, “Offenses Involving Public Administration Officials” (“Bribery and Corruption, Perjury and Falsification to Authorities; Obstruction of Justice; Escapes; and Official Misconduct”), and provisions proscribing solicitation. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 19:34-25, it is a crime in New Jersey to engage in bribery as a candidate in order to purchase or induce certain behaviors of voters specifically, but that is not the conduct alleged in the instant Indictment, and no other provision in Title 19 covering elections proscribes the bribery of unelected candidates. Further, the Government cites to no precedent, and the Court can find none, in which prosecutors have exercised their discretion in enforcing New Jersey’s bribery statutes by charging candidates for public office who were never elected with bribery-related offenses. Therefore, the Court finds that, even considering the broader set of prohibitions of conduct involving bribery under New Jersey law, bribery involving candidates for public office who promise future action once elected, despite whether they in fact get elected or not, cannot serve as a predicate act in accordance with Nardelb and its progeny.

(iii) Common Law Definition of Bribery

To determine the scope of the generic definition of bribery under common law, courts have examined the evolution of the term from early common law to the present, including reviewing definitions of bribery as set out in State bribery statutes. See, e.g., Nardello, 393 U.S. at 293-94, 89 S.Ct. 534 (examining other States’ extortion and blackmail statutes to determine the scope of the term’s generic definition); Perrin, 444 U.S. at 43, 100 S.Ct. 311 (providing overview of the crime of bribery from early common law to the present to determine whether the traditional definition of bribery includes commercial bribery). While acts involving private individuals such as commercial bribery and the bribery of witnesses have been circumscribed within the generic definition of bribery, the Court finds that, based on the evolution of the common law from its early history to current State bribery statutes, there is insufficient support for the contention that bribery of private individuals as candidates who do not get elected to public office constitutes bribery genetically conceived.

Early common law limited the scope of bribery crimes to the corruption of judges, expanding the scope of the crime throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to “other person[s] concerned in the administration of justice,” givers as well as receivers of bribes, and, finally, to the “corruption of any public official,” voters and witnesses. See Perrin, 444 U.S. at 43, 100 S.Ct. 311 (citing 3 E. Coke, Institutes, *144, *147 (1628); 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries, *139-40 (1765); J. Stephen, Digest of Criminal Law, 85-87 (1877)). When the Travel Act was enacted, “federal and state statutes had extended the term bribery well beyond its common-law meaning” to prohibit bribery of: agents or employees of common carriers under the Transportation Act of 1940 (49 U.S.C. § l(17)(b)); payments of television game show contestants under 1960 Amendments to the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. § 509(a)(2)); bank officers to influence their consideration of loans (18 U.S.C. § 215); contractors to secure subcontracts (41 U.S.C. § 51); and labor union officials (29 U.S.C. § 186). Perrin, 444 U.S. at 43, 100 S.Ct. 311.

The general federal bribery statute, enacted in 1948 and substantially amended a year after the Travel Act was enacted in 1962, can be construed as indicative of the common law evolution of bribery, and it does not extend the scope of bribery to candidates, but rather limits its application to anyone “being a public official or person selected to be a public official,” prohibiting said person from “corruptly demanding], seeking], receive[ing], accepting], or agreeing] to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: (A) being influenced in his the performance of any official act; (B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or (C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person.” 18 U.S.C. § 211(b)(2) (emphasis added); see also, 18 U.S.C. § 211(c)(1)(B) (“Whoever otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official person, shall be find under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.”). The common law offense of bribery in New Jersey at the time of the enactment of the Travel Act equally limited bribery to “the receiving or offering any undue reward by or to any person whatsoever, in a public office, in order to influence his behavior in office and incline him to act contrary to the known rules of honesty and integrity.... The common-law offense of bribery extends to any public officer. It covers all public officers: county prosecutors; chiefs of police; policemen; municipal aldermen; mayors; and members of a municipal governing body, among others.” 1 Schlosser, Criminal Laws of New Jersey, § 25.1 (3 Ed.1970) (emphasis added). “It is not necessary that the act requested be one which the official has authority to do. Sufficient it is if he has official power, ability or apparent ability to bring about or contribute to the desired end.” Perkins, Criminal Law, 405-406 (1957) (cited in Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission (“Final Report”) (1971), § 2C:27-2, Comment 1(a), at 263.

There are two federal provisions which run counter to the general circumscription in common law bribery to those vested with or attempting to influence those vested with public authority. One provision of Chapter 11 (“Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of Interest”) of Title 18, 18 U.S.C. § 211, generally proscribes the acceptance or receipt of a benefit in consideration for obtaining public office and may be read broadly enough to prohibit the bribery of candidates: “Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” Federal election law more explicitly extends bribery crimes to candidates in 18 U.S.C. § 599, which states, “Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public of private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 599.

There are two reasons why the Court does not find the bribery prohibitions as articulated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 211 and 599 as dispositive in its determination of the scope of common law bribery in establishing a predicate act to a Travel Act violation. First, there is no case law demonstrating that these provisions were utilized in prosecutions to convict candidates who were never elected to public office of bribery crimes. A thorough search of case law involving 18 U.S.C. § 211 reveals no federal prosecution on record indicating that the statute was used to prosecute federal candidates for public office who were never elected. See, e.g. United States v. Fayette, 388 F.2d 728 (2nd Cir.1968) (affirming the conviction of the State Chairman of the Vermont Democratic Party and candidate for Vermont State Senator, later elected to that office, for accepting a campaign contribution in consideration for appointment of a contributor to the office of Postmaster, a federal position). Section 599 has been cited in federal case law only three times: (1) this Court’s own review of the sufficiency of the Government’s Superseding Indictment in this case; (2) the Third Circuit’s affirmance of that dismissal; and (3) a Ninth Circuit case which affirmed the dismissal of a civil action for breach of promise of employment in consideration for efforts to assist in a candidate’s election for delegate of Guam, mentioning § 599 only in passing. See United States v. Manzo, 714 F.Supp.2d 486, 498 (D.N.J.2010) (stating that, “[w]hile certain conduct may violate more than one criminal statute, the Court is persuaded by Defendants’ argument that this statute indicates that Congress contemplated candidate liability for trading such favors and determined that this conduct warranted lesser liability than that designated under the Hobbs Act”); United States v. Manzo, 636 F.3d 56, 65 n. 7 (3d Cir.2011) (finding that, although § 599 “only applies to federal candidates, not state candidates, it reveals Congress’s recognition that candidates should be treated as a separate class under the law”); De Vera v. Blaz, 851 F.2d 294 (9th Cir.1988).

Second, Rewis and subsequent case law instruct that, in examining state-law predicate offenses to violations of the Travel Act, the Court must keep in mind that “an expansive Travel Act would alter sensitive federal-state relationships.” See Rewis, 401 U.S. at 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056. Thus, even if federal criminal law incorporates the bribery of candidates in the context of government appointments, that is not the end of the matter in determining a broader, common law understanding of bribery, and a general overview of state bribery statutes is critical in determining whether the type of activity charged is generally known or characterized as bribery.

A thorough review of all fifty State bribery statutes reveals that only twelve out of fifty States, not including New Jersey, incorporate candidates in their general prohibitions of bribery: Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. All other States very clearly indicate that the bribery proscribed in their bribery statutes is that of a bribe giver or bribe receiver while that individual is a public servant or public official. Further, the majority of State statutes do not include candidates who were never elected to public office in their respective defi