[Darren McCarty]

I don't think this would be vote buying based on the Indiana cases I've browsed as there isn't a “contract” relating to the election. Consideration (Think Sports trades - IE Team A trades John Doe to team B for future considerations) for a vote isn't there, just a strong influence. Feds may be different. 18 U.S.C.A. § 597, but “Consideration” is the key word.

I think the campaign finance sections need a closer look however. One doesn't have to be as blatant of an “influencer” to get nailed there due to the zillions of technicalities involved in that convoluted monstrosity.

[mvpel]

The thing I see in that statute is that the action or agreement of the recipient of the money or other property is not an element of the crime, only the intended purpose of the person offering it.

That would be kind of hard to prosecute if there wasn’t an agreement or contract I suppose, since you’d be trying to prosecute based on the state of mind of the defendant and what their “purpose” was in offering the property, but that doesn’t stop “hate crime” prosecutors.