-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
The Hammer goes to the Slammer
- Thread starter Unabogie
- Start date
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
That would certainly send a message about the justice system.
Madalch
The Jester
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2006
- Messages
- 9,763
Would it be a surprising message?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Will we see him on Dancing With the Bars?
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
Where's that rimshot smiley?
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
Or will he be Dancing in the Showers?
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I haven't followed this all that closely. I'm certainly no fan of Tom Delay's. However, I want to ask a question. We understand that he did something illegal. Did he do anything wrong?
From what I've read, he tried to get around some campaign finance reform laws by spending money from one pot on things that were supposed to be spent from a different pot. Did he steal anything? Would contributors be outraged that their money that they wanted to go for X actually went for Y instead?
Those are honest questions. I don't know the answers. I know that I have seen other examples of "corruption" where I don't believe any corruption really happened. If you are going to send someone to jail for more than a token few days or maybe months, I would want to find that whatever he did was really and truly rotten, not just a technical violation of some regulation.
From what I've read, he tried to get around some campaign finance reform laws by spending money from one pot on things that were supposed to be spent from a different pot. Did he steal anything? Would contributors be outraged that their money that they wanted to go for X actually went for Y instead?
Those are honest questions. I don't know the answers. I know that I have seen other examples of "corruption" where I don't believe any corruption really happened. If you are going to send someone to jail for more than a token few days or maybe months, I would want to find that whatever he did was really and truly rotten, not just a technical violation of some regulation.
davefoc
Philosopher
I haven't followed the case closely either, but I was hoping somebody was going to step forth with an opinion on this (It's so hard to find one of those around here
). Some of the answer I suspect is going to depend on the one's definition of corruption. And there's a lot of room between Spiro T. Agnew give-me-money-for-my-personal-use-and-I'll-use-my-government-position-to-provide-you-a-benefit and the various influences and motivations that lead a legislature to act for the special interest and against the general interest.In the Delay case he seemed to have been allied with Jack Abramhoff and Ralph Reed, two guys that were pretty much involved in that Spiro T. Agnew type, unequivocal corruption. But I don't think it is known that Delay was deriving financial benefit from the Abramhoff/Reed shenanigans.
But if somebody acts in unethical or illegal ways for the benefit of his party, is that corruption? How did you feel about the Federal Attorney's scandal? I think in Delay's case it might be argued that his efforts for the benefit of the Republican Party were illegal and the results of those actions resulted in direct benefit to himself in that they were some of the actions that made him successful as a house leader. In the end, whether this kind of thing meets one's definition of corruption or not it is very important for a stable democracy to aggressively prosecute it. One thing that the last ten years or so of politics in this country has made clear, the best interests of the country and the stability of our democracy are secondary to winning for many of our political leaders and without a system of laws to control these guys, Zimbabwe here we come.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Here's what I understand happened. Texas law prohibits corporate contributions to state legislative races. Delay made an arrangement with the Republican National Committee that if corporations contributed to the RNC, the RNC would give money to Texas state legislative candidates.
There's no law that prohibits corporate contributions to the RNC. There's no law that prohibits the RNC from funding state legislative races. What appears to have happened is that Tom Delay arranged for the three parties involved to all engage in some perfectly legal activity in order to have an effect that would be illegal if the third party were not involved.
If there is no more to the story than that, then I hardly think that takes us on the road to Zimbabwe.
Prosecutors charged Delay with money laundering. The concept of money laundering as a criminal offense is that one uses financial transactions to make it appear that money earned from a criminal enterprise is actually from a legitimate source. A drug dealer might have some legitimate front business, but then create phony sales from his hardware store to hide the fact that he's making his money selling drugs. It carries such a long sentence because it is used to attack some pretty serious organized crime rings.
Is that really what Delay was up to? I don't think so. Buying political ads doesn't seem to me to really be a serious crime, carrying a theoretically possible life sentence. In terms of overall threat to our democracy, I would fear the prosecutor more in this case than I would fear Delay. The idea that a bunch of politicians might skirt some fine points of campaign finance law really doesn't make me fear for my freedoms. The idea that prosecutors can use a law designed to attack drug dealers or mafia bosses and twist it to throw their political foes in jail seems more threatening to me.
So, unless there's more to this story, I'm leaning toward taking Delay's side, much as it pains me to do so.
There's no law that prohibits corporate contributions to the RNC. There's no law that prohibits the RNC from funding state legislative races. What appears to have happened is that Tom Delay arranged for the three parties involved to all engage in some perfectly legal activity in order to have an effect that would be illegal if the third party were not involved.
If there is no more to the story than that, then I hardly think that takes us on the road to Zimbabwe.
Prosecutors charged Delay with money laundering. The concept of money laundering as a criminal offense is that one uses financial transactions to make it appear that money earned from a criminal enterprise is actually from a legitimate source. A drug dealer might have some legitimate front business, but then create phony sales from his hardware store to hide the fact that he's making his money selling drugs. It carries such a long sentence because it is used to attack some pretty serious organized crime rings.
Is that really what Delay was up to? I don't think so. Buying political ads doesn't seem to me to really be a serious crime, carrying a theoretically possible life sentence. In terms of overall threat to our democracy, I would fear the prosecutor more in this case than I would fear Delay. The idea that a bunch of politicians might skirt some fine points of campaign finance law really doesn't make me fear for my freedoms. The idea that prosecutors can use a law designed to attack drug dealers or mafia bosses and twist it to throw their political foes in jail seems more threatening to me.
So, unless there's more to this story, I'm leaning toward taking Delay's side, much as it pains me to do so.
Monketi Ghost
Confusion Reactor
- Joined
- May 21, 2003
- Messages
- 25,141
Blooood! *high five, complicated dap*