// Elements a prosecutor would need to prove
- The recipient agency received ≥ $10,000 in federal benefits in the relevant one-year period.
- Corrupt intent — quid pro quo or its near-equivalent.
- A 'thing of value' was offered, given, or accepted.
- After Snyder v. United States (2024), the statute reaches bribes (paid before the official act) but not gratuities (paid after).
// What the platform's records tend to support
- Documented contract awards by state/local agencies receiving federal funds, paired with contemporaneous donations to officials of those agencies.
- Procurement decisions favoring entities tied to disclosed personal relationships of decision-makers.
// What public records cannot prove on their own
- The specific quid pro quo agreement — the temporal sequence required by Snyder.
- Subjective corrupt intent vs. legitimate political support.
// Leading cases
Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. 1 (2024)
§ 666 reaches bribery only, not gratuities — narrowing the timing element.
Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997)
Confirmed § 666 doesn't require federal funds to flow to the bribe itself, only that the agency receives federal funds.
Reminder. This is an analytical mapping, not an indictment. Determinations of guilt require grand juries, indictments, trials, and proof beyond reasonable doubt — none of which a public OSINT site can substitute for. Use this map the way an ethics watchdog or investigative journalist would: as a framework for asking the right questions of the records that already exist.
GOBLIN HOUSE
[ Enter Database → ]