Tom Delay
I’m not sure how I feel about the Delay conviction. In fact, I think I agree with parts of this Wall Street Journal editorial.
Tom Delay certainly seems to have violated the spirit of the campaign finance rules. But it seems like he found a way around them so that he couldn't be convicted of actually violating them.
But I am not convinced that he is guilty of money laundering; at least I don’t think his crime fits in with the purpose (or spirit) of the money laundering law. But if there are experience lawyers out there that feel otherwise, feel free to convince me.
On a related note, I discovered a really good blog on New York State politics the day it shut down. Oh well. Here is a really good post on Joe Bruno's legal issues.
Charles Rangel
I think the Rangel case is interesting if not a little frustrating. I agree with the people that say his crimes don't seem to fit with previous censures. However, his crimes seem worse than behavior that received reprimands.
And as bad as Rangel's actions were, I can't believe for one minute that he is the only one of the 535 members that have used their stationary for private fund-raising or forgotten to count rental income from second or third houses in their taxes. (The rent stabilized apartments situation is probably unique to New Yorkers.)
Basically, I feel that the House is making an example out of Rangel - Democrats to pretend they are tough on ethics violations and Republicans to make a Democrat look bad. But really, there are probably other examples of similar bad behavior that are missed or ignored. In other words, censure only seems strong because of how bad they probably are in cracking down on all violators.
To conclude, to the extent that justice was served in these two examples, it was imperfect justice. Maybe that is all we can hope for.
No comments:
Post a Comment