Parshas Reah: Selling your Vote

From a recent AP story: MINNEAPOLIS (AP) " A college student claimed it was all a joke when he put his vote in this fall's presidential election up for sale on the Web auction site eBay. But prosecutors didn't see the humor. University of Minnesota student Max P. Sanders, 19, was charged with a felony Thursday in Hennepin County District Court after allegedly asking for a minimum of $10 in exchange for voting for the bidder's preferred candidate. ... Sanders was charged with one count of bribery, treating and soliciting under an 1893 state law that makes it a crime to offer to buy or sell a vote. ... The scarcely used law had its heyday in the 1920s, when many people sold their votes in exchange for liquor, Assistant County Attorney Pat Diamond said. ... The charge carries up to five years' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. What are the halachic issues raised by vote buying? The Chasam Sofer has a fascinating responsum on this topic (CM 160, cited by Pischei Teshuvah CM 8:1). A certain community (whose name he omits, presumably for the obvious reasons) had decided to utilize a certain voting procedure to choose from among four candidates for the position of Rabbi of the community. Subsequent to the implementation of the vote, rumors circulated that members of the community had received pecuniary consideration from relatives of the winner to vote for him, and there was even the discovery of an incriminating letter, purporting to be from a member of the community, which made clear reference to the scandalous arrangement. A great commotion ensued, the community split into two factions, and the Chasam Sofer attempted to act as peacemaker and settle the matter. Regarding the technical halachic question of the validity of the vote, the Chasam Sofer argues that it is absolutely certain that if the fact of the bribery can be established through the testimony of two impartial witnesses, then the vote is void. He infers this from a ruling of Rema (CM 163:1): "All communal needs, which cannot be agreed upon [by the members of the community], we confer with all the householders who pay tax, and they accept upon themselves that they will all express their views for the sake of Heaven, and they follow the majority." The Chasam Sofer argues that one who is paid to vote has not given his opinion 'for the sake of Heaven'. I have long wondered, however, as to what exactly is included in the requirement that they vote 'for the sake of Heaven'? E.g, if the community is considering the construction of a wall, and I am the local stonemason, must I attempt to sequester that fact and try to determine what I would recommend if I had no financial interest in the project? As far as I know, under American law, ordinary citizens voting in a civic election, as opposed to those elected or appointed as representatives of others and voting in that capacity, have no such obligation, and the law only forbids the direct purchase of votes. The Chasam Sofer additionally rules that if we establish through witnesses that a particular candidate had himself ordered the purchase of votes, he is thereby ineligible for any Rabbinic position until he repents. Rav Shlomoh Yehudah Tabak has another important responsum on this topic (Resp. Teshuras Shai II:56). The seven Tuvei Ha'ir of some community had reached a unanimous decision on a certain financial question within their purview, but one of them had been paid to vote the way he did, and the question therefore arose as to whether their decision was binding. Rav Tabak takes for granted that the vote of the compromised official does not count, and the thrust of his argument is to show that the entire vote is invalid even though the decision had been unanimous and the other six officials had not been tampered with. He reasons that Halachah requires the presence and participation of all members of a deliberative body even where the decision of a majority suffices. In our case, the purchased member must be considered as absent, and the vote is therefore invalid. Moreover, a corrupted member is actually even worse than an absent one, since the undue influence of the bribe may have spread to his colleagues through his persuading them of his position (see the actual responsum for the background and details of his arguments). This article has been brought to you courtesy of Bais HaVaad L'Inyonei Mishpat,and Halachaboy!