Number 14:

An elected public officer is authorized by law to receive campaign contributions. A public officer’s receipt of a campaign contribution constitutes bribery only if the payment was made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the public officer to perform or not to perform a specific act. (citations omitted.)

Number 15:

Campaign contributions are not bribes even if the contributor expects to have business before the public officer in the future. For a campaign contribution to be a bribe, there must be a specific request by the contributor made of the official to act or refrain from acting as a quid pro quo for the contribution. It is not enough that the contributor is making the contribution to create good will or with the vague expectation of help in the future.

Number 22 is a variation of No. 15, but applies to the extortion under color of official right allegations.

Team Blago says his instructions are accurate statements of the law, and:

The distinction to be made for campaign contributions (as opposed to personal money) is critical in this case. Moreover, Instruction No. 15 (and 22) is the verbatim instruction given to the jury in the Allen case, approved by the Seventh Circuit.

....Moreover, respectfully, this court’s findings regarding “money is money” and that there is a “vast middle ground” and not a clear distinction between campaign contributions and personal cash or money was in error. The defense objects to the court’s characterization, apparent findings of fact, and improper statement of the law.

Team Blago says the Court's ruling was not supported by the evidence:

This court somehow claimed that the facts were that the campaign contributions were solely in the personal control of Rod Blagojevich. There was no testimony or evidence that this was the case. The government did not offer as evidence any corporation or other business entity documents – the government did not introduce any evidence that Rod Blagojevich was even an officer. The court’s findings were erroneous.

According to Team Blago, the law is clear:

The law is the law. The law on campaign contributions is that they are legally distinct from cash or other personal money. The court’s ruling does not comport with the law. In fact, as recently as July 20, 2010, the Seventh Circuit recognized the distinction between campaign contributions and personal cash. See United States v. McGee, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14823 (7th Cir., July 20, 2010) (finding that “McGee did not record the $750 as a campaign contribution and can’t use that explanation for taking the money. [Citing to] United States v. Allen, 10 F. 3d 405, 412-412 (7th Cir. 1993)”).

....there is indeed a different body of law that addresses campaign contributions within the extortion and bribery statutes. This body of law does indeed make a distinction between personal money and campaign contributions.

As to Instruction No. 5, Blago wants this one:

A person attempts an offense if he knowingly takes a substantial step toward committing the offense, intending to commit the offense. A substantial step is an act beyond mere planning or preparation to commit the crime, but less than the last act necessary to commit the crime. Speech, standing alone, is not a “substantial step.”

He argues:

The Seventh Circuit in Gladish held that if speech were sufficient for a substantial step, it would abolish the requirement for a substantial step.

Blago offered 32 instructions in total. It sounds like almost all were rejected, but these are the five he feels he needs most to prevail. Many of the others dealt with his reliance on good faith, and how the burden is not on him to prove good faith, but the Government to show a lack of good faith.

Number 33: For the purposes of Counts 3-13, and Count 1 Racketeering Acts 3(c), 4(c), 6(d), 6(e), 6(f), 6(g), 6(h), 6(i), 6(j), 6(k), 6(l), good faith on the part of the defendant is inconsistent with intent to defraud, an element of the charges. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his good faith; rather, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud.

Number 24:

For the purposes of Count 24, good faith on the part of the defendant is inconsistent with willfulness, an element of the charge. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his good faith; rather, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted willfully.

Number 35:

For the purposes of count 16, 18, 20 and 23, good faith on the part of the defendant is inconsistent with acting corruptly, an element of the charge. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his good faith; rather, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted corruptly.

Number 36: Bribery can be committed when the public official solicits or accepts a benefit or benefits with the understanding that, in exchange for a specific requested exercise of his official power, the public official will exercise the influence of his position or decision-making to the benefit of the bribe payor as specific opportunities arise. However, bribery is not committed if the contributor is making the contribution to create good will or with the vague expectation of help in the future.

Defendant Rod Blagojevich Instruction No.36 United States v. Allen, 10 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 1993) [Agreed] Alternative to GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTION NO. 50 Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 518 Filed 07/25/10

They emphasize the need for the jury to find continuity in the predicate racketeering acts on both the substantive and conspiracy RICO counts. And they wanted, but were refused, an instruction about the witnesses the Government didn't call, including Tony Rezko and President Obama, to name a few. The judge said Blago could have called them. (I thought he filed a motion to subpoena Obama and it was denied. Maybe I'm missing something.)

Number 36:

Bribery can be committed when the public official solicits or accepts a benefit or benefits with the understanding that, in exchange for a specific requested exercise of his official power, the public official will exercise the influence of his position or decision-making to the benefit of the bribe payor as specific opportunities arise.

However, bribery is not committed if the contributor is making the contribution to create good will or with the vague expectation of help in the future. Defendant Rod Blagojevich Instruction No.36 United States v. Allen, 10 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 1993)[Agreed] Alternative to GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTION NO. 50 Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 518 Filed 07/25/10 Page 5 of 5

I outlined the Government's tendered instructions and the various charges against him here.

Closing arguments are today. The judge has instructed Blago's lawyers not to go down certain paths, so I expect there will be some fireworks.