Republican officials say Arpaio made a crucial mistake in endorsing Napolitano when he appeared in the television ad with Democrat Napolitano in the final days of the extremely close gubernatorial campaign.

The last image of the commercial included a statement in bold red lettering quoting Arpaio saying: "Join me in rejecting the attacks against Janet Napolitano."

A former Democrat who switched to the Republican party in 1982, Arpaio has close ties with Napolitano dating back to her days as the U.S. Attorney in the mid-1990s. Arpaio's apparent endorsement of Napolitano late in the gubernatorial race is widely seen as a payback for Napolitano's dropping a criminal investigation of Scott Norberg's death inside his jail.

In October 1997, then U.S. Attorney Napolitano settled the federal probe into Arpaio's jail operations triggered by the Scott Norberg case without bringing criminal charges against the detention officers and others involved in the June 1, 1996 incident.

On June 1, 1996, Scott Norberg's death in a restraint chair inside Maricopa County's Madison Street Jail remains the watershed event of Arpaio's tenure as sheriff.

One of Arpaio's top aides says not only did detention officers handle Norberg properly, but the calamitous events of that day actually set a standard for how sheriff's detention officers should perform their duties in the future.

"I think the tone was set under Norberg," comments Larry Black, one of Arpaio's chief deputies.

Norberg died of asphyxia after he was tackled by 14 detention officers and strapped into the restraint chair. His head was then pressed forward against his chest and a towel was placed over his face. An autopsy report showed he sustained numerous contusions and lacerations to his head, face, neck and limbs. He had been stun-gunned more than 20 times. There were burn marks up and down his body.

Norberg's death triggered worldwide criticism of the sheriff's office.

The London-based human rights group Amnesty International conducted a review of the incident and issued a 1997 report stating: "Although Norberg was reportedly uncooperative and engaged in bizarre behavior, his behavior and initial 'passive resistance' does not appear to have warranted the extreme degree of force used, especially as he already had his hands handcuffed behind his back and was lying on his stomach on the ground when dragged by officers from his cell."

Napolitano with Arpaio's endorsement went on to barely defeat Republican Matt Salmon in a close 46.19% - 45.22% Arizona vote.

Bribery

Non-statutory sanctions. Bribery, along with treason, is one of two crimes for which the United States Constitution (art. ii, sec. 4) specifically prescribes impeachment for the President, Vice-President, and "all civil officers of the United States."

A more common sanction has been electoral, although belief a candidate is a bribe-taker is more apt to act as a comparative disadvantage than an absolute disqualification. Lawyers convicted of bribery are subject to disbarment. In descending order of frequency, electoral disadvantage, forced or prudential resignation, disbarment, censure, impeachment, and expulsion have been sanctions for bribery in high American office. In enforcing them, the role of the press has been crucial.

Statutes. Modern statutes, state and federal, have four common characteristics. (1) They apply equally to receivers and givers. (2) They are comprehensive, including as officials all employees of government and those acting in a government capacity, such as jurors and legislators. More recent statutes include party officials and even party employees. (3) They treat bribery as a crime that can be committed by the briber even though the bribee is not influenced. (4) They treat bribery as a felony.

American statutes differ in some treat a bribe as any "benefit," thereby including non-pecuniary favors, whereas others restrict the term to pecuniary benefits. Some, such as the New York Penal Code, permit extortion to be a defense for the bribe-giver (N.Y. Penal Law (McKinney) § 200.05 (1999)), but this defense is disapproved by the Model Penal Code (§ 240.1). Older statutes use corruptly to qualify the condemned giving and receiving, whereas more recent ones eliminate corruptly and speak more specifically. An essential component of modem statutes is an anti-gratuity provision making it criminal to confer any benefit on an official "for or because of any official act" (18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A)(1994)). Excepted, of course, are benefits provided by law. The provision eliminates a need to show the benefit was "to influence" performance. The giver is guilty if he gave for the act; the recipient is guilty if he took on account of the act. Some statutes also criminalize compensation for a past official act, obviating difficulty in proving bribery (Model Penal Code § 240.3). Some statutes also criminally forbid private employment in a matter on which, as an official, one had acted, assimilating such conflicting interest to a bribe. An example of such a statute is the Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of Interest Act of 1962, as amended, 18 U.S.C. §§ 201–208 (1999)).