Validity of ruling on Bribes vs. Priscus Subreferendum

Hello. Just wanted to confirm if LSJ's ruling in 1997 still applies.

4) If the Prisci subvote is in favor of the main vote, then every Priscus
is considered to have voted in favor. If the Prisci subvote is against the
main vote, then every Priscus is considered to have voted against. It
doesn't matter whether any given Priscus voted for or against the subvote,
or abstained.

For example, if the Prisci subvote is against the main vote and Bribes
is played, nobody who controls any Prisci other than the acting player can
collect pool as a result of Bribes.

Is this still correct today? A reading of Bribes' updated card text does not seem to say so.


Relevant text:

Bribes
Only usable during a referendum before votes {and ballots} are cast.
Gain 1 pool. Any other Methuselah who {casts one or more votes or ballots} in favor of and does not {cast votes nor ballots} against the referendum gains 1 pool when the results of the referendum are tallied.

The ruling you give was reversed some time ago: [RTR 20000501] .

LSJ wrote:

An individual Priscus is not tainted by the result of the Prisci
sub-referendum. (This only matters for cards like Bribes and Scorn
of Adonis that care which way individual minions voted.) A Priscus
is considered to have voted "for" or "against" (or to have
abstained from) the main referendum based on how he cast his
vote(s) in the sub-referendum, regardless of the result of that
sub-referendum. For example, if the Prisci sub-referendum is for
the main referendum and Scorn of Adonis was played, the controller
of a Priscus who voted against the sub-referendum would still
lose a pool as a result of Scorn of Adonis. This is a reversal of
a previous ruling.

So, no, the 1997 ruling on Bribes vs Priscus is not correct (and hasn't been for 11 years). Bribes was updated to mirror the latest ruling from the Rules Team.