Includes public officers or employees of the federal government within the definition of public servant

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Michelle Hinchey says this is needed

State anti-corruption laws have been designed and modified over time to provide criminal penalties for elected officials or staff who violate the public trust through acts like accepting bribes or otherwise abusing the power of their office. The applicability of these laws typically depends on the manner in which the state defines "public servant" or "public official." In some states, such as New York, this is limited to officers or employees of the state or its political subdivisions, such as counties or towns. However, several states including Colorado, India- na, and Maine also include officers or employees of the federal govern- ment in their statutes. New Yorkers should be able to trust their public officers to uphold legal and ethical standards whether they serve in State or Federal government. Voters often choose their state legislators, statewide electeds, and Members of Congress on the same ballots, and rely on their trustworthiness to the same degree. State and federal officials interact regularly, advocate for and against similar issues, and public corruption by federal officials can impact state policy and vice versa. While State electeds are of course subject to federal law, New York's good government statutes do not hold our federal electeds to the same penal law rules as our state officials. This bill would expand the defi- nition of "public servant" in the penal law to hold our state's federal officials, such as our US Senators and Representatives, to the same statutory conduct requirements as state officials.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.