Also known as: quid-pro-quo · this for that
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
An exchange of one thing or action for another of comparable value that supplies the mutual consideration supporting a contract or other reciprocal arrangement.
A corrupt bargain in which an official act is traded for a personal benefit.
An exchange of one thing or action for another of comparable value that supplies the mutual consideration supporting a contract or other reciprocal arrangement.
Quintana Quest sought a building permit to expand her beachfront home. The coastal commission approved the permit only after Quest agreed to grant the public a permanent easement across her property. The required easement operated as the direct exchange for the development permission.
A corrupt bargain in which an official act is traded for a personal benefit.
Judge Quentin Quach attended a private dinner hosted by a recently convicted racketeer. Numerous guests at the event had documented ties to organized crime. Even without evidence of any actual exchange of favors, the judge's presence created the appearance of an improper reciprocal arrangement that undermined public confidence in judicial impartiality.
Candidate Quinley Quincy publicly promised voters that she would decide certain recurring legal issues in a specific way if elected. The promises were made during the campaign in direct response to voter preferences on those issues. Observers viewed the statements as an implicit exchange of favorable rulings for electoral support.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Quoc Quan contributed a substantial sum to a candidate's campaign committee. The contribution was made shortly before the candidate took official action that directly benefited Quan's business interests. The timing suggested the money was given in return for the anticipated official action.
Quill Publishing spent heavily on independent advertisements supporting a candidate's campaign. After the election the candidate met repeatedly with company executives to discuss regulatory matters affecting the publishing industry. The expenditures were viewed as an implicit exchange for future official access.
Queenie Quinones burned a cross on private property in a manner that conveyed racial animus. City officials prosecuted her under an ordinance that singled out cross burning while leaving other forms of intimidating expression untouched. The selective prohibition was challenged as an improper exchange of speech protection for viewpoint suppression.
Ordinary contributions may create influence or access. A quid pro quo exists only when an official act is explicitly or implicitly exchanged for the contribution. The distinction determines whether campaign-finance limits survive constitutional scrutiny.
Yes. When an insider gifts material nonpublic information to a trading relative or friend, the relationship itself supplies the required personal benefit. The government need not prove a tangible pecuniary exchange.
No. The appearance of impropriety alone is sufficient. Even without evidence of an actual quid pro quo, the association undermines public confidence in judicial integrity.
Yes. Title VII prohibits conditioning employment benefits on sexual favors. The demand creates liability because the condition is imposed only on employees of one sex.
Yes. The offer constitutes bribery or another high crime or misdemeanor. The explicit exchange of an official act for financial support falls within the constitutional standard for removal.
…more essential ingredient of an effective candidacy. To the extent that large contributions are given to secure a political quid pro quo from current and potential office holders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined. Although the scope of such pernicious practices can never be reliably…