Imagine being sentenced to more than seven years in federal prison: not for bribery or stealing public money, but for an obscure charge of “honest services fraud” — a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services — in the course of your company’s routine, contracted services for a county office.

That’s what happened to Michael Shirley, a Texas-based Republican political consultant and longtime colleague of mine. I served on the Austin City Council from 2021 to 2025 and have known Mike professionally for more than six years. What happened to him isn’t just a personal tragedy — it’s a warning about how the federal government can weaponize vague laws to criminalize political opponents.

In 2023, Shirley was convicted of honest services fraud, a federal charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 that penalizes breaches of fiduciary duty. Shirley was also ordered to forfeit over half a million dollars. If this sounds like a vague charge, it is. The U.S. Supreme Court warned in 2023 that this relatively new category of crime is ripe for abuse by overzealous prosecutors, sometimes as a last-ditch effort.

Shirley was initially accused of bribery, a charge more easily understood. But when that theory collapsed, federal prosecutors shifted gears during the trial. Prosecutors alleged that Shirley paid a $6,000 bribe through Joseph Ellicott in 2017. But Ellicott, facing his own federal charges, invoked the Fifth to avoid cross-examination on unrelated conduct.

Ellicott admitted to speaking with embattled former Seminole County Tax Assessor Joel Greenberg just months before the trial, during which Greenberg reportedly promised him a lighter sentence if he testified against Shirley. No direct evidence of a bribe was ever produced, and the original bribery theory was ultimately abandoned.

Federal prosecutors then claimed that Shirley, who was never a government employee, acted as a “de facto public official” simply because he added standard line-item markups for subcontracted work and overhead for his consulting as part of his work for Greenberg. But that practice is entirely legal and routine in professional services.

Even the trial judge reportedly said, according to a letter from Shirley, “Sounds like capitalism to me.”

Nonetheless, a jury, presented with evolving theories and modified instructions, convicted him. Ellicott, a key government witness, invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 60 times. Jury instructions were changed after the defense had rested its case. There was no evidence of stolen funds. No public official testified that they were deceived. Yet Shirley is now serving more than seven years in prison.

Wider Ramifications

This outcome should alarm anyone who has ever signed a contract with a public agency. Suppose prosecutors can’t prove bribery or theft. In that case, they may fall back on honest services fraud and argue that any business markup, if associated with a government office, is grounds for federal charges.

This is not justice. It’s a distortion of legal norms in pursuit of a political narrative.

As someone who served in public office, I understand the need for transparency and accountability. But what I saw in Shirley’s trial record was not accountability. It was a prosecution determined to get a conviction even when its original allegations fell apart.

There has been almost no corporate media coverage of Shirley’s case. No headlines. No viral outrage. But that silence only highlights the importance of speaking up.

Vague Statute

The honest services statute has long been criticized for its vagueness. In the 2010 case Skilling v. United States, the Supreme Court narrowed the statute’s application to clear-cut bribery and kickback schemes. Shirley’s case did not meet that standard. Instead, it was an aggressive interpretation of business conduct, recast as criminal behavior.

When the Department of Justice prosecutes someone under an ambiguous law, especially after abandoning its original bribery theory, it undermines the idea that we are all protected by predictable, stable legal rules. Prosecutors essentially told the jury: “We can’t prove he broke a clear law, but we think he acted unethically, so convict him anyway.”

When legal definitions are blurred to suit political ends, the consequences are not limited to high-profile consultants. They affect the integrity of our entire system. The rule of law is not just about statutes — it’s about fair application, due process, and equal treatment regardless of political affiliation.

Politicization

The longer I’ve followed this case, the more disturbed I’ve become — not just by what happened to Shirley, but by what it means for every consultant, advisor, or contractor who interacts with public agencies. If this prosecution is allowed to stand, nothing is stopping a future administration from using the same theory to go after its political enemies.

If prosecutors can redefine someone as a “public official” just because their work involved a government office, and then claim they defrauded “the public” without identifying a single real victim, the rest of us are never truly safe. The government will always be able to find a narrative if it wants one. And that’s a problem not just for conservatives, but for anyone who believes in due process and equal justice under the law.

Shirley is serving time for a crime that no one can clearly define and that no one thought to charge until his former client, Greenberg, became the focus of federal investigations and prosecutors began looking for others to implicate.

That’s not justice. It’s politics.      

If we value a justice system rooted in fairness, this case should concern every American. Because if it can happen to Shirley, it can happen to anyone.