Here are the basic facts: Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) is a political action committee which Mr. DeLay helped organize. According to the indictments, in September 2002 six corporations contributed $155,000 to TRMPAC, which then contributed $190,000 to the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC -- an arm of the Republican National Committee). The RNSEC later contributed $190,000 to seven candidates for the Texas House of Representatives. The indictment claims that is "money laundering" by Mr. DeLay and his associates, since Texas law prohibits corporate donations to state political campaigns. And much has been made of the fact that Mr. Earle attached to the indictment a copy of TRMPAC's check to the RNSEC -- as if it were damning evidence uncovered after thorough investigation.DeLay did nothing unlawful--unless the lefty campaign to criminalize conservatism succeeds.
That is hardly the case: The contribution is readily available public information, reported by the RNSEC in its 2002 monthly reports to the Federal Election Commission. So what is going on? Here we need to take a step back and look at federal law as it existed before the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, which took effect in November 2002 -- after the contributions named in Mr. Earle's indictment.
The place to begin is with national political parties, which raise money in all 50 states and spend money supporting state and local candidates in all 50 states. Before McCain-Feingold, both the Republican and the Democratic parties routinely accepted "soft money" (from corporations and unions, plus large individual contributions) from Texas and other states where corporate funds could not be contributed to candidates. National parties were free to spend soft money on party administration, advertising on issues of importance to the party, and also to send it back to state and local candidates in the more than 20 states that allow corporate contributions. At the same time, national parties also received contributions of "hard money," consisting of smaller individual contributions. Hard money, kept in separate accounts, was also sent back to state candidates -- in all states.
There was thus a constant flow of hard and soft money (the latter including corporate contributions) to the national party committees, some of which was sent back to state candidates. Indeed, during the 1990s the DNC developed a "tally" system in part to see that soft money contributed to the DNC from a given state was roughly offset by the hard money contributions from the DNC in that state.
Before McCain-Feingold, no state, to my knowledge, had ever held that this practice violated laws against corporate contributions to candidates. No one considered a common practice such as this to be "money laundering" any more than you would think that you and your bank had conspired to "launder" money when you deposited your paycheck in the bank, and the bank later loaned you money to buy a car. . .
To summarize, the theory against Mr. DeLay goes something like this: Corporations made legal contributions to TRMPAC; and then TRMPAC made a legal contribution of this soft money to the RNSEC, which, as required by federal law, kept the funds in a separate account. The RNSEC then used an account containing individual contributions (hard money) to make otherwise legal contributions to 42 candidates for state or local office in Texas, including seven who may have been specifically recommended to them by Mr. DeLay and others. Somehow this series of legal transactions constitutes money laundering.
Two questions result. First, is it "laundering" when the law specifically allows corporate contributions to be used for administrative costs, and a party or PAC uses individual contributions thereby freed up to make increased candidate contributions? Second, even if so, in light of the unprosecuted and public ubiquity of the practice, on both state and federal levels, is it consistent with basic due process to now charge Mr. DeLay and his associates with a crime for which the possible penalties include life imprisonment?
Monday, November 21, 2005
Demonizing DeLay
Former Federal Election Commission Chair Bradley Smith explains why the Dems' Tom DeLay witch-hunt will fail (today's WSJ, subscription only):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Republicans Calling a Decorated War Hero a Coward Devalue the Heroism of our Soldiers Currently Serving in Iraq
Even in the Orwellian world of American politics the events of recent weeks have been surreal. But despite all the arguing going on among our political leaders one thing has been constant and that is the overwhelming support among Americans for our troops in the field. Regardless of ones political affiliation or view on the conduct of the operation in Iraq, it is clear that all Americans support the troops, and all grieve equally when they are injured or die. Suggesting that only one side of the political spectrum is concerned about the well being of our troops is small-minded idiocy; clearly those who say or believe such a thing are profoundly morally handicapped.
It is clear to anybody who is paying the least bit of attention that the war in Iraq is not going well. Thus far 2094 American soldiers have died and more than 15,000 have been left permanently disabled. The war has thus far cost the average American family over $3000 and costs each family an additional $100 per week. The sole measure of success on the part of the wars supporters is that if we left now the country of Iraq would implode. Americans have rightly come to question whether this is an appropriate measure of success for a war that has cost us all so dearly.
But as the Bush Administration grows increasingly desperate they have come to adopt a strategy of questioning the patriotism of those with whom they disagree. It should be noted that 63% of Americans believe that the war is not going well, and that 57% of Americans believe that the Bush Administration misused pre-war intelligence to justify their preconceived plans of going to war. But Bush and Cheney are undeterred, grimly describing those who don’t agree with their policies as “deeply irresponsible, reprehensible and dishonest.”
Recently the Bush war marketing campaign has taken a further turn, suggesting that those who question the Administration conduct of the war undermine our soldiers in the field, that those who disagree with Bush don’t support the soldiers. Only19% of Americans support Cheney, 34% support Bush and only 40% of Americans still believe that Bush is honest. Those numbers seem to be sinking by the day as Americans are increasingly disgusted and appalled by an Administration and a Republican Congress that judges whether citizens support their own soldiers on the basis of who agrees or disagrees with the Administration war policy.
There is no doubt that we ask a great deal of our soldiers in the field, this has been the case throughout the history of our country. We have seen so many times that ordinary men are asked to perform extraordinary duties; those that go above and beyond are considered heroes and recognized by their country for their valor. Just over a week ago our country paused to reflect and remember, and to honor those who served our country in war. Veterans proudly displayed their medals, tokens of appreciation from a grateful country for their acts of bravery. Today in Iraq we have men and women performing those same duties on our behalf; some will be similarly honored.
But what message does it send to our soldiers in the field in Iraq, soldiers whom we are asking to perform extraordinary acts of bravery on our behalf, when their Commander in Chief who sent others to do his war service questions the bravery and patriotism of a soldier who earned 2 purple hearts in battle? When the Vice President (himself a recipient of 5 deferments) suggests that a much-decorated veteran who happens to disagree with him “lacks backbone?” When a Republican member of Congress suggests that that same decorated war veteran is a coward? Does it devalue the service of our soldiers in the field when they see that the Administration can so easily dismiss a war hero as a coward simply because he disagrees with them? Why should they be as committed to duty, honor and bravery as John Murtha was when they see that the Administration would piss on Murtha and his medals for their political purposes? Would the Administration do the same to them?
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, just when you thought you had seen the worst of American politics, we’re treated to the spectacle of cowards like Cheney calling heroes like Murtha a coward. Orwell lives, but the last shred of decency on the part of the Bush Administration has long since passed. The Bushtanic is sinking, but as it was when Nixon went down the mood is not celebratory, it’s far more like mourning; mourning for our country, for all of us…for we brought it upon ourselves when we elected the incompetent bastard and his band of sissy-hawk warriors.
"No one considered a common practice such as this to be "money laundering" any more than you would think that you and your bank had conspired to "launder" money when you deposited your paycheck in the bank, and the bank later loaned you money to buy a car.."
That's just great. Gave me a good chuckle.
Dittos, A_S_I.
I know they will fall, but guess who's gonna soften, spin, and distract from such fall...need I say?
> Republicans Calling a Decorated War Hero a Coward Devalue the Heroism of our Soldiers Currently Serving in Iraq
Phil, all you become when you post anonymously is an anonymous twit.
You're still a twit.
Especially when you post something blatantly off-topic.
ON TOPIC, however:
The whole McCain-Feingold law is an abortion on the same par as the Millenium Copyright Act. The only proper way to dissuade excessive political vote buying is to make campaign finance transparent, not controlled. Any and all moneys collected should be traceable to their source, and said information should be publicly readily available on the candidate's internet website. If people don't like the appearance that the votes are bought, then they won't elect someone.
I always kinda liked the bumper sticker approach to campaign finance--Jack Kemp would have to wear a sign on his forehead announcing he's a wholly-owned subsidiary of Steve Forbes.
As for Anony, if he's really Phil (whoever that is), why doesn't he say so? There will be no reprisals--It's unsportsmanlike to shoot sitting birds.
Post a Comment