Does the SCOTUS decision on corporate money mean that Siegeleman

[JDPriestly]

could not be convicted today for allegedly having exchanged payment by a corporate donor to a non-profit corporation supporting his agenda? Will the SCOTUS decision make it very difficult to prove bribery under facts similar to those in the Siegelman case? This is the appellate decision and will represent the facts not necessarily accurately but as that court assumed them. Whether or not this characterization of the facts is true, it would seem to me that this decision will make it very difficult to bring facts like those alleged against Siegelman and prove bribery. Only in extremely obvious cases will bribery be brought to justice.

I am not necessarily agreeing with the court's view of the facts, but these are the facts the court accepted as being true.

Don Siegelman was elected Governor of Alabama in 1998 on a campaign
platform that advocated the establishment of a state lottery to help fund education
in Alabama. After his election, he established the Alabama Education Lottery
Foundation (the “Foundation”) to raise money to campaign for voter approval of a
ballot initiative to establish a state lottery. Darren Cline, the Foundation’s
(footnote omitted)fundraising director, testified that Siegelman “called the shots” on the lottery
campaign. The lottery initiative was eventually defeated in a referendum held in
October of 1999.

On March 9, 2000, the Foundation borrowed $730,789.29 from an Alabama
bank in order to pay down debt incurred by the Alabama Democratic Party for getout-
the-vote expenses during the lottery campaign. This note was personally and
unconditionally guaranteed by Siegelman.4

Richard Scrushy, the CEO of HealthSouth had served on the CON Board
under three previous governors of Alabama. . . . . The Governor of Alabama has sole discretion to appoint
(footnote omitted)
the members of the CON Board, who serve at his pleasure.5 Scrushy had
supported Siegelman’s opponent in the just prior election.

Nick Bailey . . . . (paragraph) testified that, after Siegelman’s election in 1998, Siegelman met with
Eric Hanson, an outside lobbyist for HealthSouth, and told Hanson that because
Scrushy had contributed at least $350,000 to Siegelman’s opponent in the election,
Scrushy needed to “do” at least $500,000 in order to “make it right” with the
Siegelman campaign. Bailey testified that Siegelman was referring to the
campaign for the lottery initiative, and that Hanson was to relay this conversation
to Scrushy. Bailey also testified that, in another conversation, Hanson told Bailey
that Scrushy wanted control of the CON Board.

. . . .

In May, Siegelman and Bailey traveled to HealthSouth’s headquarters in
Birmingham, where Siegelman met privately with Scrushy in Scrushy’s office. At
that meeting, Scrushy gave Siegelman a check issued by HealthSouth for $250,000
payable to the Foundation. 8 On May 23, 2000, the $250,000 check was applied
directly against the Foundation’s loan balance.
The Foundation was required to disclose contributions received and
expenditures made in statements filed with the Alabama Secretary of State. It
failed to file timely any disclosure regarding any funds received until July of 2002,
(footnote omitted) after Alabama newspapers questioned whether the financial dealings between the
Foundation and the Alabama Democratic Party had been properly reported and the
Secretary of State’s Office had written a letter to the state Attorney General’s
Office about the Foundation’s non-disclosure of the payoff of the Democratic
Party’s campaign loan. All funds received were then reported.

Lanny Young was a long-time business associate of Siegelman’s who
testified that he was part of a “pay-to-play” arrangement with Siegelman existing
over many years. He testified that he would provide money, campaign
contributions, and other benefits in return for official action, as needed, that
benefitted Young’s business interests. He testified that in January of 2000,
Siegelman asked him for $9,200 to buy a motorcycle. The evidence was that
Siegelman had already purchased the motorcycle. Young testified that he and
Bailey worked out the details for the transaction.

Bailey testified that he did not want Young to give the money directly to
Siegelman, so Bailey told Young to write the check to him, Bailey, which he
deposited into his own account. He then wrote a check to Lori Allen, Siegelman’s
wife, which he gave to Siegelman and which was deposited into Siegelman’s bank
account that same day. There was testimony that a check written to the IRS for
fourth quarter estimated taxes would not have cleared the account but for the
$9200 deposit.

By June of 2001, Siegelman was well-aware of the federal-state
investigation into the Foundation’s finances and Siegelman’s dealings with
Young. Bailey and Young each testified that, in an effort to cover up Young’s
$9,200 payment to Siegelman, Bailey gave Young a check for $10,503.39, on
which he noted “repayment of loan plus interest” in order to make it
appear that he had borrowed the $9,200 from Young. Bailey also wrote a check to
Siegelman for $2,973.35 with the notation “balance due on m/c” to provide a
reason for his borrowing money from Young, which was to purchase the
motorcycle from Siegelman. Bailey testified that he did not borrow the money to
buy the motorcycle, but that Young’s $9,200 had gone through him to Siegelman
and “we used the motorcycle to cover it up.” Bailey testified that Siegelman was
aware of and approved Bailey’s writing of the $10,503.39 check to Young.
Bailey testified that he gave Siegelman the $2,973.35 check at the office of
Siegelman’s attorney, who, along with Bailey’s own attorney, was present for the
transfer. Neither lawyer was told that the purpose of the transaction was part of
the coverup of the $9,200 payment from Young to Siegelman. Siegelman
accepted the check, and provided Bailey with a bill of sale for the motorcycle,
which the attorneys helped finalize. Bailey testified that he lied about the
transaction to the lawyers, that he and Siegelman knew that the federal
investigation was going on, and that he later lied to federal investigators about the
transaction to protect himself and Siegelman.

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200713163.pdf

This document is in the public domain I believe, therefore I quoted more than the permitted number of paragraphs.

So, the kinds of transactions that are alleged here are common in politics. Abramov was doing something of this nature. Virtually every right-wing Christian political PAC is up to these tricks: appoint our guy to this or that and our organization which is funded by some huge corporation or extremely wealthy person will donate to a non-profit that fights for something or other.

This is very different from organizations that do not request or receive favors from politicians in exchange for their financial support of non-profit groups that buy ads and support issue campaigns.

So what will this SCOTUS decision mean in the coming election?

Horrors.

[elleng]

1. No likely effect on Siegelman.

Coming elections, horrors.

[theboss]

2. Bribery tends to involve personal gain, Campaign contributions are separate

That will never change.

Granted, it's a blurry line. But there is a difference to me giving $1,000 to Robert Byrd's campaign chest and me giving $1,000 to Robert Byrd.

The Siegelmen case is still bribery. Though, I guess it is technically embezzlement.

Anyway, you still aren't going to be able to co-mingle funds.

[JDPriestly]

4. You won't need to.

You organize your campaign so a lot of the ads and work is done on the dimes of your corporate supporters. You don't have to declare them as campaign contributions. This SCOTUS decision will destroy whatever vestiges of representative government we have.

Chief Justice Johh Roberts has relatively young children. They are in the generation that will most suffer from the decision today. Shame on him. He has doomed his own children to corporate subservience and indoctrination.

[JPZenger]

5. It is not bribery if there is no gain

Siegelman and his campaign did not benefit from the contribution.

Besides, we're talking about re-appointing a guy to an unpaid post. Its not like he traded an ambassadorship for a campaign contribution. Now, that should be a felony.

[dbonds]

3. You think this (bad) ruling will be applied fairly?

It will only be applied to help the powers that already be.