Does 'explicit' in the context of campaign contribution bribery mean a quid pro quo agreement that can be inferred or implied, or does it require a heightened standard under First Amendment principles?

QUESTION PRESENTED Where the government charges an elected official with bribery for accepting campaign contributions in exchange for lawful constituent services, McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991), requires that the government prove an “explicit” quid pro quo agreement to exchange the contributions for an official act. The question presented, on which (as the Second Circuit acknowledged) the lower courts have failed to provide a consistent or clear answer, is: Does “explicit” mean a quid pro quo agreement of any kind, including one that is inferred or implied; or is a heightened quid pro quo standard necessary in light of the First Amendment principles involved in the context? ii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS This case arises from the following proceedings: United States v. Benjamin, No. 22-3091 (2d Cir. Mar. 8, 2024) (reversing dismissal). United States v. Benjamin, No. 21-CR-706 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2022) (dismissing bribery counts of indictment).