## Facts

- Robert L. McCormick, a member of the West Virginia House of Delegates, supported legislation benefiting foreign-trained doctors practicing under temporary permits.
- After efforts to end the temporary-permit program, affected doctors organized and hired lobbyist John Vandergrift to seek legislative relief.
- McCormick sponsored legislation extending the temporary program in 1984 and agreed to sponsor legislation for permanent licensing in the 1985 session.
- During McCormick’s 1984 reelection campaign, he told Vandergrift his campaign was expensive and that he had not received support from the foreign doctors.
- Vandergrift collected cash from the doctors and delivered four cash payments to McCormick during the campaign and a fifth after the permanent-licensing bill became law.
- McCormick did not report the payments as campaign contributions and did not report them as income on his 1984 federal tax return.

## Issues

1. Whether a Hobbs Act prosecution for extortion “under color of official right” based on campaign contributions requires proof that the payments were made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking to perform or not perform an official act (an explicit quid pro quo).
2. Whether erroneous jury instructions on the Hobbs Act count required reversal of a related conviction for filing a false federal income tax return.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Hobbs Act conviction.
- The Court held that, when the alleged extortion consists of campaign contributions, the government must prove the payments were made in return for an explicit quid pro quo.
- The Court concluded the jury instructions permitted conviction without requiring that finding, and the court of appeals affirmed using a theory not submitted to the jury.
- The Court left the false tax return conviction undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- In Hobbs Act cases involving campaign contributions to elected officials, criminal liability requires proof of a payment made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking to perform or not perform an official act.
- A standard equating illegality with contributions given with an “expectation of benefit” is overbroad because contributors commonly hope officials will support their interests.
- Appellate affirmance cannot rest on legal and factual grounds not presented to the jury where the jury was not required to find the essential quid pro quo element.
- The campaign-contribution rule is applied to avoid treating ordinary fundraising and constituent-related legislative activity as federal extortion absent an explicit exchange.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Hobbs Act extortion premised on campaign contributions requires proof of an explicit quid pro quo, reversed McCormick’s Hobbs Act conviction due to deficient jury instructions, and remanded for further proceedings while leaving his tax conviction in place.


McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991)