Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Uber, reading the articles, particularly the last one, really does answer your question. Because we don't have public financing of elections, both parties must raise funds in one way or another and there are laws in place concerning how this can be done. The author of this particular opinion piece was attempting to raise flags of alarm over a legal practice.
The illegal activities uncovered in the 109th congress weren't just a bit "unseemly." Money laundering through charitable fronts to circumvent campaign finance laws, or receiving a yacht in exchange for favorable legislation are a far cry from hosting a fund raising luncheon.
Individual members of bother parties are capable of being corrupted, particularly so of the majority party. I'm counting on Sloan and other watch dog groups to keep the Dems honest.
As an aside, does anyone know why Jefferson, with $90K in his freezer, has yet to charged for what looks to be an obvious bribe? Something's not right with that one, imo.
|
I agree completely that there is a big difference between fund-raising events within the current ethics and campaign finance laws that both parties use regularly (however distateful and unseemly) and the excesses of corruption, bribery, and vote buying/influence peddling. The inferences in the politically motivated Solomon article are just that..with no foundation of any wroing-doing (at least, yet)
As
Sloan/CREW noted, the recently passed Senate bi-partisan (90-8) ethics and lobbying bill, the first in 10 years, will help (if the House will pass a similar bill and Bush will sign)..but much more is needed, including real campaign finance reform.
As to Jefferson, I think the case is currently bogged down in a Constitutional issue working through the courts. The evidence against him was pretty strong. However, the Justice Dept. also raided his Congressional office to obtain more evidence. This had never been done in the history of Congress and Jefferson raised a possible "separtation of powers" issue. Even former Repub Speaker Hastert agreed with him:
"The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case. Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress. Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years.
The
circuit court ruled against Jefferson, but it now has to work through the Appeals Court and most likely, the Supreme Court. I personally think Jefferson's argument is pretty weak, but still needs to be ejudicated.
It certainly could also appear to some to be politically motivated that Atty Gen Alberto Gonzales felt compelled to authorize a seach of Jefferson's office, for the first time in the history of Congress, but felt no such need in the investigations of Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, or Tom Delay.
In the end, Jefferson will likely pay for his crime because the other evidence against him is convincing (ncluding a videotape of taking a bribe and the testimony of a former staff member who pled guilty, not to mention the money in the freezer).