Quid Quo Pro?

I've said it many times before, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on the Internet, but I'm sure there are legal eagles out there who can clear up my confusion  regarding several cases involving democrats and the long arm of the law here in Sweet Home Alabama.

Yesterday I pointed out the hypocrisy of former state Rep. Sue Schmitz's (D), conviction and sentencing  for being paid tax dollars for not working, and former Huntsville City Schools Superintendent Ann Roy Moore, who was also paid tax dollars for not working. 

Anne Roy Moore presents another interesting comparison (for lack of a better word) to former democratic Governor Don Siegelman's conviction for bribery (Quid Quo Pro).  To make a long story short, prosecutors argued  Don Siegelman appointed Richard Scrushy to the CON board in exchange for a campaign contribution.

Now, turn to the case of Ann Roy Moore, who according to several Huntsville City School Board members was paid to not work so she wouldn't file a lawsuit against the school system.

Topper Birney said that, despite the money Moore's been paid over the past six months, keeping the former superintendent on as a consultant likely saved the district much larger costs with a possible lawsuit.
"This was probably, in the long run, the most cost-efficient way to handle it," Birney said.
David Blair, who was not on the board when Moore was ousted, agreed. Blair pointed out that, until the board decided to fire her, Moore had received nearly perfect performance reviews.
"In my estimation, the system had (legal) exposure," Blair said. "It was the best resolution for both parties."

Question, what is the difference between appointing a campaign contributor to a board, and paying someone tax dollars not work in exchange for not filing a lawsuit?