I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. They can't be rewarded either.
What I think is at issue here is that the people accepting these gratuities are free to police themselves for what is considered "acceptable".
Imagine going back in time to explain to Tammany Hall that they should've been calling all of those bribes "gratuities" instead and they would've been fine
the supreme court is just worried that if the government can go after a politician telling a vendor he needs money after giving them sweatheart contracts then they can go after anyone
So hold up. A politician *suggests* in a public forum that a person needs to be "removed". Someone (or a group of people friendly to the cause) takes that person out and the politician pays them afterwards.
Does this mean the politician has committed no crime?
Truly amazing we (collectively) are apparently going to just let this bunch of mobsters edit all the laws however they want.
Add a word here, delete one there, and hey-presto! "It turns out I can receive as many free RVs as they want, but only after the term ends. It's just a tip for a job done."
