Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8: Emoluments Clause

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

There are two main parts to this clause. The first prohibits Congress from establishing any kind of nobility in the Unites States. This is relatively straightforward.

The second part prohibits any federal officer from receiving anything from a foreign sovereign or foreign state that might have the appearance of a bribe. This, too, would seem uncontroversial.

However, in 1871, the Attorney General instructed the diplomatic corps that it was permissible for a diplomat to act as an informal intermediary between two foreign powers (that is, using his good offices to facilitate negotiations); but he was prohibited from accepting any kind of formal commission from a foreign power to to use his good offices to facilitate negotiations with another power, unless he had the consent of Congress to do so.

More recently, the question has come up whether a President with business interests with a foreign sovereign or foreign government must end all such business before entering office. For example, is a President who owns a chain of hotels prohibited from putting up leaders or representatives of a foreign government at one of his hotel?  This is clearly not a present, office, or title, but is it an emolument?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “emolument” as “Profit or gain arising from station, office, or employment; dues; reward, remuneration, salary.” This seems quite broad, and would clearly prohibit a federal official also receiving a salary from a foreign state with permssion of Congress. However, the exact legal meaning of “emolument” has never been litigated, and it is quite possible the courts would rule that incidental business transactions did not constitute an emolument. Likewise, it is not clear that this clause applies to elected rather than appointed officials, though Congress has passed a statute explicitly extending the prohibition to the President and Vice-President.