Closing Bribery Loopholes Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2026
Bottom line
The bill expands the legal definition of 'official act' under federal bribery statutes, making it easier to prosecute public officials for accepting bribes related to a series of actions or unsuccessful attempts to influence policy.
What it actually does
This bill amends the federal bribery statute (18 U.S.C. 201(a)(3)) to clarify the definition of an 'official act.' It explicitly states that an official act can be a single act, multiple acts, or a course of conduct, and that it applies whether or not it successfully achieves a desired outcome. This aims to broaden the scope of what constitutes bribery under federal law.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this clarification is necessary to close loopholes exploited by corrupt officials, ensuring that a broader range of influence-peddling and quid pro quo arrangements, including those involving a pattern of behavior or failed attempts, can be prosecuted as bribery, thereby strengthening public trust and accountability.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that this expanded definition could lead to overreach by prosecutors, potentially criminalizing routine political interactions or making it easier to target officials based on ambiguous 'courses of conduct' rather than clear, discrete corrupt acts, chilling legitimate advocacy.
The bill text is extremely short and easy to read, allowing for quick comprehension of its direct legal changes.
Section 2, amending Section 201(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code
Clarification of Definition of Official Act
This provision amends the federal bribery statute to clarify what constitutes an 'official act.' It explicitly states that an 'official act' can be a single action, multiple actions, or a continuous course of conduct. Furthermore, it clarifies that an act still qualifies as an 'official act' for bribery purposes even if it does not successfully achieve the desired outcome. This aims to broaden the scope of prosecutable bribery schemes under federal law.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this clarification is essential to combat sophisticated corruption schemes where officials might engage in a series of actions over time, or where their corrupt acts don't immediately yield the desired result but still constitute an attempt to influence. This closes a perceived loophole, ensuring justice for all forms of bribery.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that the term 'course of conduct' is inherently vague and could be subject to overly broad interpretation by prosecutors, potentially chilling legitimate advocacy or making it easier to pursue politically motivated charges against officials whose actions are not clearly defined as a single corrupt act.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the need to deter and prosecute complex forms of public corruption against concerns about potentially expanding prosecutorial discretion and the risk of criminalizing ambiguous political interactions.