Circuit judges, DAs, all kinds of folks lower on the ladder than him could tell you unequivocally they are. Far less counts.
Anyone in corporate America who’s done anti-corruption training could tell you. Millions and millions of people.
He had a staff he could ask to check for him if he were actually uncertain (and there’s zero chance he was sure they weren’t gifts). A staff he doesn’t even pay for. If he wasn’t sure and didn’t do that, guess what? He really knew the answer.
I’m a government contractor. Every year I take a training course on just this topic. If I don’t take the course, my direct supervisor will personally ensure that I do.
I may not accept gifts from anyone that I (or my spouse) have business with, or might have business with, as part of my job. The dollar threshold used to be $10. They raised it a few years ago to $25. So now I can accept a coffee mug from SpaceX, but probably not a polo shirt.
If I have any questions, there is an ethics office that I can (must) talk to about whatever situation arises.
This setup is pretty common for people who are paid by the government, and it was instated for very good reasons that we’re all aware of.
I have nothing but contempt for this behavior on the part of Clarence Thomas. He is so far over the line. It’s outrageous.
Yes, using the everyday definition of "gift." Is it an improper gift? Depends on what your professional relationship is with your friend and their family. Must you report it? That's a legal question that depends on a lot of things.
Friends giving gifts is usually fine and a positive aspect of friendship. But, in the case of Supreme Court justices, we've decided they need to record and publish these gifts. That way, Congress and the public can decide if their rulings were affected by "gifts." For example, South Korea's Supreme Court flew Ruth Bader Ginsberg over for $8000. That was probably more of a "professional networking and learning" gift. But if somebody with a connection to South Korea's government had a case before the court, then we could've pressured RBG to sit that case out.
Depends on the details. My spouse was a local elected official in California, which has significant gift reporting requirements for those who hold local or state office (not federal office holders though). Staying at a friend's ranch, would likely fall under a limited gift exception [1], and would not usually be reportable:
> 1. Home Hospitality. Gifts of hospitality including food, drink or occasional lodging that an official
receives in an individual’s home when the individual or a member of their family is present. (Regulation
18942(a)(7).) Such hospitality provided by a lobbyist is a gift unless the home hospitality is related to
another purpose unconnected with the lobbyist’s professional activities. Generally, this means functions
like children’s birthday parties, soccer team parties, neighborhood barbeques, etc., where other guests
attend who are not part of the lobbying process. (Regulation 18942.2.)
or if the friend were not present, it may fall under this one...
> 6. Long-Time Friend. Benefits received from a long-time personal friend where the gift is unrelated to the
official’s duties. The exception does not apply if the individual providing the benefit to the official is
involved in some manner with business before the official. (Regulation 18942(a)(18)(C).) This exception
does not apply if the person providing the benefit to the official is an individual who otherwise has
business before the official as set forth in Regulation 18942(a)(18)(D).
Note that long-time friend is more restrictive than home hospitality while a family member is present. I would interpret this to mean that if your family friend has business related to your official position, you wouldn't need to report the stay if they were there, but if you stayed at their ranch while they weren't there, you would. Either way, if they had business with your position, I'd avoid the stay --- but my spouse was in a very limited scope office, so other than neighbors, nobody we knew had any reason to be involved in official business.
Did you pay? If not, then it was obviously a gift. One most people would understand as a particularly generous and intimate gift, at that, and one often given with an explicit eye to its financial value.
If you are in charge of procurement at your company, now go ahead and give your family friend preferential treatment for some contract. If you are a judge, now go ahead and write a ruling that favors them, directly or indirectly.
Which is why his disclosure of them was non-existent.