1. Defendant argued that the government’s definition of official act expanded the scope of the statute by making any act done by an official an “official act.” He argued that he did not commit an “official act” when he solicited his bribes because he was not acting on any “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy.” How did the court address this argument by the defendant?
2. The court found that whether the public official could carry out the decision did not matter and that the statute covers any situation in which the advice or recommendation would be influential. What is the intent of this part of the statute? What would be the effect if the government had to prove that the official had the power to influence, rather than he just said he did?
3. How are official acts defined? Can you define official acts based on this opinion?