DeLays’s TRMPAC Spent Money It Didn’t Have

Well the prosecution in the Tom DeLay money laundering trial is about to rest its case, I hear. Today another nail was driven in the coffin that represents Tom DeLay’s future freedom of movement with the testimony of a “forensic accountant.”

That’s an interesting term, forensic accountant. Interesting because usually you see the term forensics used in a scientific investigation of evidence in a crime. This is the equivalent in the world of dollars and sense (or should I say nonsense?).

The forensic accountant, Marshall Vogt, pored over the accounting records of TRMPAC and asked some very important and pointed questions?

From the Austin American-Statesman:

“Why would a political committee that intended to function beyond the 2002 elections donate money it didn’t have to a larger, better-financed organization?”

Why indeed?

TRMPAC had two separate accounts, one containing contributions from individuals and one containing contributions from corporations. The check that Jim Ellis gave to the RNC was drawn on the corporate account. It was corporate money. But it gets even better than that.

According to the accountant, there weren’t enough funds in the account to cover the $190,000 check. It would have bounced had not John Colyandro made a personal loan of $40,000 to the PAC.

Why give a check for more money than the account contained to the RNC, an arguably better funded money raising organization than TRMPAC? Did it have to do with party building? Was TRMPAC just a flash in the pan temporary PAC meant to go out of business when it’s funds were all spent for the 2002 elections?

Did it have to do with the fact that 7 state rep seats needed to be picked up so Tom DeLay could have a second congressional redistricting party when his party won the majority in the mid-term elections?

Is this a trial about a crime committed or politics being committed? Frankly, yes, it’s about both. The irony is that in 2002 this was a felony punishable by up to a life sentence, now we live in a world where this is not only commonplace, but applauded as an exercise in freedom – that corporations have as much right to buy elections as anyone else.

I have the answer. It has been there all along. It’s still the law of the land that only US citizens may donate to campaigns, foreigners aren’t supposed to, at least not legally. It’s right there in the 14th Amendment that a citizen of the United States is born in this country or is naturalized.

Corporations are neither.

So, OK, let’s let corporations be people. They can be people. They just can’t be Americans.

No “Constitutional Republican” could hardly disagree.

DeGuerin: Calendar Will Acquit Tom DeLay

Now, despite having admitted on tape to an assistant DA that he knew about a future “soft cash” for “hard cash” transaction, an illegal act, Tom DeLay will eventually be vindicated claimed his hotshot lawyer Dick DeGuerin. 

“DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin told reporters the transcript context indicates DeLay couldn't have known about the money swap until after the deal was done -- and he said he would prove it by showing DeLay's calendar.”

Well that should do it. Nothing like coming up with a trump card like Tom DeLay’s own personal calendar to prove, once and for all, that he knew nothing about a pending cash exchange – an exchange to do something in Texas that you’re not supposed to be able to do.

I even got a peek at the calendar:

September 30 2002:

10:00 AM: Meet with Colyandro. Give him the Bacardi check.

11:00 AM: Lunch, smoke a Cuban cigar. Be the Federal Government

2:00 PM: Destroy somebody.

3:00 PM: Still don’t know anything about RNC soft cash for hard cash exchange.

4:00 PM: Destroy somebody else.

5:00 PM: Go home.

October 1 2002:

9:00 AM: Strut in front of a mirror.

10:00 AM: Still don’t know anything about RNC soft cash for hard cash exchange.

11:00 AM: Lunch. Pray for George Bush.

3:00 PM: Destroy an old lady with blue hair.

4:00 PM: Go get some money from Sears.

5:00 PM: Be completely innocent of money laundering.

6:00 PM: Go home.

October 2, 2002

9:00 AM: Destroy all Texas teachers’ hopes of getting their Social Security.

10:00 AM: Meet with Ellis. Don’t become informed that he is going to arrange an illegal cash transaction with the RNC.

11:00 AM: Lunch. Destroy all Democrats. 

You get the idea . . .

They Have It on Tape!

Yesterday I mentioned that Tom DeLay, who is on trial for money laundering to illegally allow PAC contributions from corporations to benefit Texas State House campaigns is his own witness against himself.

In fact, he is the only witness to verify that he knew about the illegal transaction before it happened.

This is because in 2005 "The Hammer" agreed to be interviewed by prosecutors who were investigating the money laundering scheme, and ironically it was so that he could keep his job as House Majority Whip.

Something that didn’t happen, largely because of the results of the interview.

But, you know, I have very low expectations so I figured that the only record of the interview consisted of stenographer’s notes or maybe even some rough notes made by the prosecutors. Or maybe someone’s hazy memory that DeLay’s lawyer could pick apart.

But no.

They have it on tape!

And today, the jury was allowed to listen to Tom DeLay say over and over again that this was just business as usual in Washington DC political finance maneuvers.

From AP:

“DeLay said repeatedly in the interview played for jurors Wednesday that the money swap was a legal, common practice done by both Republicans and Democrats”

So I got it right for once. Tom DeLay had no idea that he was committing an illegal act. He is so corrupt that something so obviously illegal, so obviously underhanded, seemed like a natural act to him.

But to have him performing this on tape is just icing on the cake and makes his performance on DWTS, a hard-to-watch performance at that, pale in comparison.


DeGuerin should be considering his next legal tack: Innocent by reason of utter stupidity.

Pants on Fire

Tom DeLay is, quite frankly, his own worst enemy. Maybe it’s his brain function. Apparently in his former job of bug exterminator he inhaled one too many lungful of toxins that went right to his central nervous system and killed brain cells. Either that or it is one, or twelve, too many martinis.

Because as we now read the coverage at his money laundering trial, the prosecution will apparently never directly tie Tom DeLay to the actual request to the RNC to launder $190,000 of corporate PAC donations so they could give it directly to Republican State House campaigns. Those who did make the request, DeLay’s underlings, are on trial separately for this.

No, unfortunately, there is no evidence that DeLay did this, well all except for one witness who gave a statement to prosecutors in 2005: Tom DeLay.

From the Austin American-Statesman:

“The prosecution's case could turn on its circumstantial evidence and DeLay's own words when he reportedly told prosecutors in 2005 that he knew about the transaction before it occurred.”

Tom, Tom, Tom. If you are a guilty as H-E-Double Hockey Sticks the last thing you do is admit it to people who can bring you to trial. What is clear to me is that DeLay was so ignorant of the fact that he had committed a crime that he actually bragged about knowing that the transaction was going to happen before it did.

This is exactly what he did in Sam Sparks’ courtroom when he testified that he didn’t know where he would be living on Election Day in 2006. Had he just been a little less coy, had he given Sparks even a hint that he wouldn’t be eligible to serve if re-elected, I think Sparks would have given him the benefit of the doubt.

But he didn’t, and now we see that only a year previous to that testimony he made this other blunder, one that he has had to backpedal on and say that when he testified to that he was in error.

“Since then, DeLay has said he didn't know about the money swap until after it was done, saying he just made a mistake in his comments to authorities.”

Believable?

PANTS ON FIRE!

DeLay Lawyers Charge Trial Is Politically Motivated

And I thought that when you made an assertion in a court of law, you had to back it up with evidence.

Today, Dick DeGuerin, Tom DeLay’s lead attorney in his money laundering case, made a statement that the charges leveled against Tom DeLay were “politically motivated” on the part of retired District Attorney Ronnie Earle.

Gee, do you think?

After all, Tom DeLay’s crimes and misdemeanors were politically motivated to gain an unfair advantage and get a majority of state reps in the Texas House, and then use that to unfairly redraw congressional district boundaries a second time to increase the number of Republican congressmen from Texas.

But prosecutors deny that Ronnie Earle was politically motivated.

But the truth is, political motivation or no, a law was violated. Were Ronnie Earle not to prosecute Tom DeLay for money laundering, that could also be construed as politically motivated. When you don’t prosecute when a crime is committed, that is even more politically motivated than prosecuting when a crime has occurred.

Do you think?

But I can see where this is going. Here is what DeGuerin said about what Earle thought about DeLay’s crimes:

“Mr. Earle's philosophy is corporate money in elections is dangerous to democracy.”

Gee, do you think?

 

As we have seen in the past election, corporate money in elections in effect murders democracy. “Dangerous” is an understatement.

DeGuerin is obviously setting up for the “Citizens United Defense.” That is, what was very obviously thought to be dangerous to democracy in 2002 has evolved to being fair and balanced policy in giving a corporate entity the same rights as an individual and allow them to give campaign contributions to anyone. That is, ironically, if the Citizens United case is the law of the land now, should Tom DeLay’s case be appealed to the US Supreme Court as it now stands, any conviction would be overturned.

But I really don’t think it will come to that. DeGuerin is, I think, ready to make that case right now. Whether he is successful or not really depends on whether his jury agrees that ExxonMobil has as much right to give unlimited billions to Republican campaigns as they do.

If they had unlimited billions, that is.

“Money is absolutely fungible. It’s like beans.”

That’s quoting Senior District Judge Pat Priest, the judge hearing Tom DeLay’s money laundering trial. It was made out of earshot of the jury to Tom DeLay’s hotshot lawyer Dick DeGuerin this past week.

And if I understand the meaning of the words correctly, I think Tom DeLay needs to make plans for a two year vacation. I think the judge has already made a decision on the guilt or innocence of Tom DeLay, and now it’s simply up to the jurors to come to the same conclusion.

What the judge is essentially saying, something that is completely logical and reasonable, is that once you have money you can exchange it freely. It doesn’t matter what pocket it comes from, money is money and if you use it to gain advantage in an election by violating election laws, then that’s a crime.

In essence, the judge came to that conclusion five years ago when he ruled on the defense’s position back then, the same one they continue to argue last week.

From the Austin American-Statesman:

“Priest said he had already ruled on the issue in 2005 when the defense wanted the charges dismissed.”

Now all it takes is some appropriate instructions to the jury and we have won a moral victory. And maybe we can say that what started in Texas, the monetization of democracy in America, ends in Texas.

Side Note.

And in my research in this story this morning I made another startling discovery. I discovered that Tom DeLay’s daughter, Danielle, who testified at her father’s trial last week in her capacity as her father’s underpaid campaign manager and event planner for her father’s PACs (she earned only 60 grand as the former, and only 84 – 5 organizing PAC functions) is now a 6th grade science teacher.

A 6th grade science teacher.

I guess the fact that she is still underpaid is the only common theme between her present and her former jobs.

Keith Olbermann's Suspension: Putting the Playing Field on El Capitan

There’s a mountain in West Texas that has at its acme the eighth highest point in the state of Texas. You can see in the photo at right that it has some very sheer cliffs, nearly perpendicular to a flat plain, and it has on its lower half a nearly uniform planar slope that you could play football on if only you could run up it.

This is where I suggest we put the new playing field that is emerging with regard to political contributions, and play the new game of DeLay Dollars.

The game was invented by Tom DeLay in 2002 when he invented a scheme to pass corporate dollars directly to the campaigns of Texas House candidates, a game that, ironically enough, he is on trial this week in Austin for inventing it. But the game was perfected by the uberconservative justices of the US Supreme Court in the now-infamous Citizens United decision that has put our democracy up to the highest bidder.

But now, today, I read that while conservatives can donate to conservative causes and candidates with wild abandon, liberals are not allowed that option.

I read today that Keith Olbermann, the man that invented MSNBC’s liberal message machine has been suspended without pay indefinitely because he donated to the campaigns of 3 Democratic candidates this year.

MSNBC’s suit dweeves apparently don’t like the fact that Keith Olbermann put his money where his mouth was and denied to him the honor and privilege of doing what any citizen in this waning democracy can do: support a candidate that agrees with their political outlook.

That they did this the very week of a Republican mid-term election sweep that was bought and paid for by corporations, corporations that they are in competition with, supposedly, is just the icing on the cake.

I made it a point to be ready to sit down at the tube by 7 PM every weeknight and watch Keith Olbermann’s entire inspired program from end to end. People know not to call me on the phone during that hour or risk my wrath.

Now no Keith Olbermann.

Guess what? No Keith Olbermann, no MSNBC. I will be boycotting MSNBC and every business that advertises on MSNBC until this wrong is made right.

The Tom DeLay Show Debuts Monday

Tom DeLay’s money laundering trial got a start this week as the prosecution and defense grilled dozens of potential jurors, finally settling on six men and women, none of them African-American because DeLay’s counsel Dick DeGuerin had three black jurors struck because they frowned at him.

And largely due to the prosecution’s objections, one juror was replaced by a black woman who had laughed and joked with DeGuerin earlier.

This marks the beginning of what I predict will be a circus. Tom DeLay, is at his absolute best (i.e. worst) when he works to degrade and disrespect the judicial process. He belittles the system of justice that has brought him to trial for breaking a 100-year old law just as he cheapened the legislative process while he was a majority leader in Congress.

The last time he found himself in court, in Judge Sam Sparks’ federal district court, his smugness and flippant responses, elicited Sparks’ “run like a rabbit” remark. Again DeLay belittled the judicial process which served to prove the plaintiff’s (the Texas Democratic Party) case, and as a result the Republican Party of Texas had no one on the ballot to run for his old seat.

Which is one of many of Tom DeLay’s personal faults: he fails to learn from his past mistakes.

Like the time he spent on “Dancing With the Stars.” It seems that many of the prospective jurors saw him on DWTS and were not impressed with what they saw. Said one woman, “he is a bad dancer.” DeLay himself can’t avoid using the word dancing to describe himself. Said he last August 17th when the Justice Dept. dropped their criminal investigation of him with regard to his receipt of expensive gifts from lobbyists, of the political climate in DC:

“They have to completely drown you and put you in prison and destroy your family and your reputation and your finances, and then dance on your grave.”

Which is ironic.

The irony is that Tom DeLay just may be the only politician in history to dance on his own grave.

So the 3-Ring Circus that will become The Tom DeLay Show begins on Monday and is expected to go for 3 weeks.

“…And Stay Out of My Retirement Fund”

In speaking to a group of enthusiastic supporters recently, Bill White’s comment elicited an outburst from one among the crowd when he asked them whether they agreed with him that public resources shouldn’t be used by a political machine to elect the same person, year after year.

Here is a video clip of that moment:

I’ve mentioned it before, here, that Rick Perry uses the retirement fund for Texas’ public school teachers to reward his friends and cronies, but most of all to reward his campaign fund donors.

If you think that’s a really good idea, then you can do one of two things: vote for Rick Perry for another 4 years of this, or don’t vote at all. And if you really don’t care about how Rick Perry uses the retirement fund of teachers to benefit himself and his friends, if you don’t care at all, just don’t vote.

But if you think these acts should be made illegal, Bill White is your guy.

[Oh, and as an aside, I just noticed that this is my 2000th posting on this blog. Geez, I need a life.]

Rick Perry’s Many Crimes and Misdemeanors

In the latest polling, 7% of Texas likely voters are still “Undecided” in the race for Governor of Texas. 

How that works given what we are all finding out about Governor Perry’s crimes and misdemeanors being revealed in the press is beyond me, but I suspect that these people are staying blissfully ignorant because reading the news or seeing it on television is not in their normal schedule.

Things are bound to turn around as the time for them to vote comes up, and they start to pay attention. My guess is that this 7% are finally going to be exposed to the brutal truth that their governor of the past 10 years is as crooked as a barrel of fish hooks.

As my gift to you, here is Texas Government Code Section 556.004:

§ 556.004. PROHIBITED ACTS OF AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS.

(a) A state agency may not use any money under its control, including appropriated money, to finance or otherwise support the candidacy of a person for an office in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch of state government or of the government of the United States. This prohibition extends to the direct or indirect employment of a person to perform an action described by this subsection.

(b) A state officer or employee may not use a state-owned or state-leased motor vehicle for a purpose described by Subsection (a).

(c) A state officer or employee may not use official authority or influence or permit the use of a program administered by the state agency of which the person is an officer or employee to interfere with or affect the result of an election or nomination of a candidate or to achieve any other political purpose.

(d) A state employee may not coerce, attempt to coerce, command, restrict, attempt to restrict, or prevent the payment, loan, or contribution of any thing of value to a person or political organization for a political purpose.

(e) For purposes of Subsection (c), a state officer or employee does not interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination if the individual's conduct is permitted by a law relating to the individual's office or employment and is not otherwise unlawful.

Rick Perry: I See Nothing

Imagine that. Rick Perry had no knowledge that not one, not two, but three of his current or former campaign operatives/chief of staff had dabbled in some scurrilous politics when they arranged for money to fund and/or engineered the collection of signatures so that the Green Party could appear on the November ballot.

He knows nothing about it. He sees nothing.

From the Austin American-Statesman:

“GOP Gov. Rick Perry, asked today at what point he learned about the efforts of some Republicans to get the Green Party on the ballot, said: ‘I have no knowledge of that at all.’”

Funny the verb tense he used, “have” instead of “had.” It’s as if the things that the reporters were telling him about his former campaign workers, and a former chief of staff were things that he had not heard of at all.

It is as if Rick Perry’s brain is a tabula rasa, something that contains no knowledge at all of past or present events in this matter.

It reminds me of my favorite television character from the 1960’s comedy series, “Hogan’s Heroes.” Sergeant Schultz, upon being presented with clear evidence of wrongdoing would utter his famous tagline “I see nothing . . .”

Present tense.

Common thread? They both look like buffoons.

TDP to Greens: Run if Corruption is What You’re About

Today the Texas Democratic Party filed a motion to drop their lawsuit against the Green Party, challenging the legality of the signatures that they submitted to get their candidates on the November ballot

The TDP, it seems, didn’t want to look like it was standing in the way of a third party’s ability to field its candidates. Admittedly that was a fatal flaw in their effort. The legality, or rather the illegality of the signatures, gathered by an anonymous out-of-state corporate contribution it seems, was denied by the 9 Republicans who sit on Texas’ highest court. This is despite the fact that new evidence has emerged that now three operatives that can be directly linked to Rick Perry or his campaign. These operatives had direct involvement with funneling the money to enable signature gathering, putting Republican fingerprints all over the Green Party signature gathering effort.

From the TDP’s press release:

“The Texas Democratic Party filed this lawsuit because Texans deserve to know who secretly spent over half a million dollars to influence the 2010 elections. Just a few years ago, Republicans in Texas engaged in the Tom DeLay TRMPAC scheme to illegally use corporate money to affect State House races. Now, it appears that Republicans have again used corporate money from a secret donor to improperly influence Texas elections”

In dropping the suit this virtually assures that Green Party candidates will appear on the November ballot along with Democratic, Republican and Libertarian candidates. Of the three other parties, the Green Party stands to derive many of their votes from those who would otherwise vote for Democrats.

This was obviously the intent of the Republicans who funded the Green signature drive.

In competing with Democrats for liberal votes, TDP Chairman Boyd Richie remonstrated to Green Party candidates that their candidacy was tainted with money callously donated to them by those who hold them in vile contempt. Said Richie:

“Green Party leaders should remember that actions speak louder than words. It is up to the Green Party candidates to decide whether they want to continue candidacies that were bought and paid for by Republicans who hold the Green Party in contempt. If the Texas Green Party ever wants to be taken seriously, their candidates should heed the advice of Texas progressives, step down and dissociate themselves from a Republican corporate money scheme that flies in the face of everything the Green Party claims to believe.”

My message to The Greens then is this: OK Greens, the Democratic Party is dropping its opposition to your presence on the ballot, this despite the damage that it could do to its own candidates in close elections – and all statewide elections will be close this year. Now the ball is in your court either to show Texans that you have no moral convictions and will act as spoilers in your own selfish interest, or to show that you are serious in your liberal progressivism and have no desire to let Republicans buy themselves another election.

Your choice.

The Green Party Needs a New Logo

Don’t you think?

I mean, after all, I didn’t really know what the logo of the Green Party actually was until today when I looked it up.

Here is their logo at the left.

See? It’s not an animal like the D’s and R’s. Obviously, if you are going to name your party after a color, a color whose wavelength is in the range of about 510 nanometers, your logo might want to be in the arena of vegetables, not animals.

But here’s the problem. The logo looks strikingly like that of British Petroleum, doesn’t it? They had another logo, a “BP” inside a green shield but they changed it awhile back.

I didn’t notice when they did that.

So The Green Party and British Petroleum have very similar logos and I think the Green Party might want to reconsider theirs now that BP has committed one of the greatest ecological disasters in all of history (I still think that when the Russians killed the Aral Sea, that was worse).

I have a modest suggestion. Now that the Green Party has become a subset of the Republican Party in that it was through the cash provided by Republican operatives that the Greens of Texas are able to get certified on the November ballot, a deal that was sanctioned today by the nine Republican justices on the Texas Supreme Court, they need a logo that now better reflects their party and their values.

Long green.

Green Old Party Hires Republican Attorney

The Dallas Morning News carried a story yesterday afternoon that the Green Party, henceforth to be known as the Green Old Party for its unholy alliance with the Party of the Dark Side, has hired Andy Taylor (lately of Mayberry, NC?) to represent the Greens in a lawsuit filed by the Texas Democratic Party over a question of the legality of a $200,000 in-kind contribution from an out-of-state Republican operative.

ARMPAC and TRMPAC had puppies, it seems.

Anyway, Wayne Slater reports that Green Party Chair Christine Morshedi has hired Republican attorney Andy Taylor to head up their defense in the TDP suit.

Begging the question: Are there no Green Party lawyers? Or are Green Party lawyers making themselves scarce as the party that paints itself as the true party of goodness and right heads down a dark twisty path, taking a cue from the GOP that any opportunity to win is better than the right thing to do.

Wait it gets better. According to Slater:

“Taylor has a long history working for Republicans. He defended an effort by Tom DeLay to use corporate money to help elect GOP candidates beneficial to Republican redistricting. He has represented several Republican candidates in election cases and was a top aide to then-Attorney General John Cornyn .”

My guess is, is that if they were to poll the Green Party faithful they would find an overwhelming opposition to this unholy alliance. I, personally, would feel utterly slimed by this association.

But then I guess this might just be a measure of just how desperate the Green Party leadership is for some level of legitimacy in Texas. To which I would say why not wait until Texas elects one, just one liberal or left-leaning statewide candidate to office? Because right now, the Green Party’s chances at gaining legitimacy in this state is about as good as a snowball’s chance in Houston (in July).

In Harris County Voter Fraud Takes On a New Meaning

Perhaps it is appropriate that the assistant director of voter registration for Harris County, one Ed Johnson, testified twice this past legislative session at hearings on the infamous and now dead Voter ID bill. The bill that its Republican touts claimed would eliminate rampant voter fraud in Texas.

Appropriate in that as it has been revealed b y The Lone Star Project and aired at KHOU, Ed Johnson is something of an expert in voter fraud.

You could say that Ed Johnson is the King of Fraud, vis-à-vis things that have to do with voting.

Because in his role as assistant director of voter registration, Johnson is responsible for purging voters from voter rolls, and is the guy who not only opens sealed provisional ballots but is principally responsible for counting them. Or not counting them.

But Johnson has another job. A job that he does not openly advertise. As it turns out, Johnson is a paid political hack of the right wing of the Republican Party. You know, the people who pushed the Voter ID bill in the last legislative session, to the detriment of several other bills that would have had a more meaningful positive impact on the lives of Texans.

In addition to his day job at the Harris County offices, Johnson works for a company called Campaign Data Systems or CDS. The company is owned by State Rep Dwayne Bohac, but its website lists Ed Johnson as the principal technical contact person [but don't bother clicking on the hyperlink - since the original posting of this piece State Rep. Dwayne Bohac has taken down his company's website].

Now it’s OK, in my opinion, to have two jobs. It may even be OK to have a job that is inter-related with your other job, although in this case, the ethics of it is a little questionable. But what is not OK is to have that situation and not disclose it to anyone.

Not disclose it to say, the voting public. Not disclose it to say, the Senate committee on Elections, the body that invited Johnson to testify before it on the Voter ID bill. Twice.

And that is not just “not OK,” it’s odious. It is yet another confirmation of my suspicion that Republicans will preferentially lie, cheat and steal their way into office rather than run an honest campaign.

And of this I am certain. As long as Ed Johnson continues to be employed by Harris County, voters should doubt that their votes are being honestly counted.

Illinois Governor Arrested By Feds for Uber-Corruption

So this morning, in an effort to bring a stop to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevitch’s corruption “crime spree,” FBI agents went ahead and arrested the governor and his chief of staff. Blagojevitch, a Democrat (and not a very progressive one at that, apparently) had been under scrutiny for the past three years.

They had to. The governor was poised to sell Barack Obama’s US Senate seat to the highest bidder.

The Feds’ 76-page affidavit unsealed today contained quotes that were recorded by phone wiretaps and bugs in his office. Here is a collection of these incredibly incriminating little gems:

“It’s a #$%&*!@ valuable thing — you just don't give it away for nothing."

“They're not going to offer me anything of value I might as well take it.”

“I'm going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain.”

Now Barack Obama had his own idea of whom Blagojevitch should pick and let him know about it. But the Gov. had some words about that, too.

“They're not going to give me anything except appreciation. #!%&*!"

Isn’t it amazing? This guy must have thought himself to be truly bulletproof. The utter gall of it is just another indication of how institutional Illinois state political corruption is. But now with an Illinois politician about to take power, a guy who knows the ins and outs of Illinois politics, maybe we will finally see the Feds take a broom to that place. Or maybe I should say take a plunger to it.

More appropriate.

Why Rat On Your Friends?

In yesterday’s posting I presented a theory, nestled in a collection of sordid tales, of how one former congressman may be the focus of federal investigators in the dealings of former Texas congressman Tom DeLay – or his associates. I am left with one question to ask and answer: why rat on your friends?

Some of that question has been answered – cooperating with the feds seems to be a good idea for someone so down on his luck, as seen in the press, and so vulnerable now that he has no power and his “friends” have all fled.

But that does not get us into the mindset of John Sweeney. Doesn’t at all. Not unless you look at his past statements on his former friends, friends who cannot help him any more.

Look at this piece again by Elizabeth Benjamin of the Times-Union. In it you can see where being a former friend and ally of James Sweeney gets you. The comment was recorded during the time Sweeney was being questioned about his failure to provide information on who paid for his trip to the Northern Marianas Islands. Sweeney claimed that the Saipan Chamber of Commerce paid the bills, and as a US Commonwealth entity, these benefits do not need to be reported to the FEC. Sweeney claimed that he was informed of this by Abramoff (and former Tom DeLay staffer) aide Tony Rudy. Later, however, the Chamber refuted Sweeney’s claims that they paid the bills.

Commenting on Rudy, who by then had pled guilty in federal court to several corruption counts, Sweeney had this to say:

“It was our understanding that this was paid for by the Marianas government. If it was based on misinformation that may have been given to us by a guy who's now an admitted felon, I will go to the Ethics Committee and ask what I should do.”

There you have it in a nutshell. James Sweeney’s former friend, the guy who provided for him a lavish lobbyist-paid junket is now ‘a guy who's now an admitted felon’.

And this, in the end, is why I think John Sweeney is such a ripe target for federal investigators. He had lots of friends, lots of contacts, but has now been left to swing in the breeze by them.

And now we see, from his comment about Tony Rudy, what he thinks of former friends.

Theory: A New Canary About To Sing A Tale of DeLay?

Now this kind of sordid tale generally doesn’t drop in my lap, and I usually don’t touch ones like them until I have read about them somewhere else, but this story is one that I can’t leave alone. Thanks go to Susan who unloaded this little oeuvre from her DC mole on me last night.

What I propose here is a theory that federal investigators of former congressman Tom DeLay (and maybe associated others) in their continuing government corruption probe, have a new canary. Whether that canary is now singing for them or not isn’t known, but from the information Susan’s source has been gleaning, if the concert has not started yet, he may be just now clearing his throat.

Former Congressman John Sweeney, formerly of New York Congressional District 20, a congressman named in the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) report “Beyond DeLay” as “one of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress”, has had a change of heart vis-à-vis his lawyerly representation.

Former Congressman Sweeney (he lost his seat in 2006 in a squeaker to Democratic freshman Congresswoman Kirstin Gillibrand) shared with Tom DeLay an acquaintanceship with Jack Abramoff, an all expenses paid trip to the Northern Marianas Islands (the sweatshop and prostitution capitol of the western Pacific), and . . . and a Virginia law firm with specialists in white collar crime defense and federal investigations.

Yes, including the other two above, John Sweeney and Tom DeLay shared an apparent appreciation for the legal services of McGuire Woods LLP. DeLay was the far more active client, having laid out to McGuire Woods in one October 15, 2006 payment, $175,000. Sweeney’s paltry charge of $6,262.20, paid to McGuire in September of that year, confirms that Sweeney and DeLay were both clients of the same law firm.

But now Sweeney has had a change of heart, and not at an entirely convenient time, it seems. Late last year, Sweeney plopped down what must be one of the last $10,000 checks that he could write from his dwindling campaign fund, made out to DC law firm DLA Piper, US, LLP. DLA Piper also has specialists in “white collar criminal defense”. So Sweeney may still be feeling a need to retain these kinds of services, but apparently not at Tom DeLay’s place of legal representation.

Why?

Well, given the worst case scenario, what if the concert was about to begin, and John Sweeney started singing the sweet tunes of corruption to federal investigators? What if those tunes led in directions that would put McGuire Woods in a conflicting position with their other client(s)? What better way to head off those unpleasantries than just to take your game to another law firm.

But why Sweeney? Aren’t there just a whole bunch of these fish out there? Yes, there were ten or so who lost their seats in 2006, but maybe none who have had such recent personal and legal troubles as Sweeney. It almost sounds like a soap opera, but this has all been in the news.

Apparently late last year John Sweeney was pulled over for erratic driving on the turnpike. He was accompanied by a 23-year old woman who was observed sitting in his lap, which might itself cause some erratic driving, but apparently he had a blood alcohol content of .10 as well and so was arrested for DWI . . . AND driving erratically.

And then just a month ago Sweeney was involved in a misunderstanding with a local taxi company. It seems Sweeney engaged the services of a taxi to take him home from an upstate New York strip club at around 2 AM on January 8th, but upon arriving at his house, he refused to pay the cab fare. That got the state police involved, and it was all settled the next day when he (soberly, I guess) sent his son down with a check.

There are other stories, such as alleged wife beating and drunken carousing at frat houses, but that’s just titillation and I won’t bore you with these details.

Now this is all speculation on my part (and, let’s face it, the DC source’s), but doesn’t it look like some government investigators have gotten their hooks in a guy who might have some knowledge, as in confirmation knowledge, of some of the scandalous activity that spelled the beginning of the end of the Republican hegemony in America? A guy who really can’t say “no” right now?

This can’t be good news for Tom DeLay or any of the others who are still out roaming free. Their former associates Jack Abramof, Tony Rudy, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham and the like have all had their turn with the judge as well as the turnkey. Can it be this canary that, so down on his luck, vulnerable, and willing to sing in exchange for some immunity, will turn the rest of them into jailbirds?

Can there be more to come courtesy of our man Sweeney? More revelations? Some tasty little treats for us? If so, I think I am safe in saying that our anticipated canary has a most apt surname.

"God, that's good that is de have you

Licious ever tasted smell such

Oh my God what perfect more that's

Pies such flavor

God, that's good!!!

(From “Sweeney Todd”, God That’s Good!)

Why A Part-Time Texas Legislature Is Out-Moded and Promotes Corruption

I almost fell out of my chair when I read today Chris Bell’s article posted a couple of days ago at ExaminerNews.Com. Bell says that the idea of a Texas legislature being comprised of citizen-legislators is out-dated and invites personal use of campaign funds as well as influence peddling on the part of lobbyists.

I couldn’t agree more, and have made several postings on the subject.

Of Texas low-paid Texas legislators, Bell wrote this:

“Unless they’re retired or independently wealthy, they’re in a tough spot. There aren’t a whole lot of jobs that lend themselves to a legislator’s schedule, so those in office become prime targets”

The answer, Bell writes, is to raise the pay that Texas legislators receive, and he suggests raising it to $100,000 per year, and reduce the amount of outside income that they can receive.

Why do we pay our legislators at a level that is sub minimum wage? Well for one, they only work 140 days per year every other year. We have a part-time legislature so they are paid for part-time work.

Why does the second most populous state in America have a part-time legislature? I checked and it’s because of the reaction to Reconstruction. I found this here:

“Harvey Tucker, a political scientist at Texas A&M University and an expert on the Texas Legislature, says that Texas biennial sessions and low pay for legislators date to the post-Civil War era.”

"’It has to do with the time period when the constitution of Texas was written. It’s a post-Reconstruction reaction. Southerners viewed Reconstruction as a foreign army,’ he said. ‘When they got control, they said 'never will we have state government -- Yankee or Texan -- with that kind of power again.'"

That Texas needs a full-time legislature is obvious as evidenced by the fact that special sessions have been called more often than not lately. There simply isn’t enough time to get done all that needs to be done. The most populous states in America have discarded their citizen-legislator systems. Check it out here.

And there is some evidence that a full-time well-paid legislature is freer of potential conflict. From the same article:

“Full-time legislators may be less inclined to be swayed by special interests and be accused of a conflict of interest because they are more likely to be paid a decent wage, they say”

Robert Stern, former general counsel on the California Fair Practices Commission (equivalent to the Texas Ethics Commission) says this of his state’s full-time system:

"We don’t see examples of outright conflicts in California, but that doesn’t mean they’re not there. My feeling is, California legislators have less time to have outside income than obviously the legislators in Texas."

Bell also has this to say about reporting about ethically challenged legislators:

“I would also like to read fewer stories about the conflicts of interest and ethical challenges faced by lawmakers because of the obvious need most have to supplement their income.”

This is a very telling statement in my opinion. What it tells me is that not only is this citizen-legislator system a system of institutional corruption, but that because they have no alternatives to corrupt practices, we should all turn a blind eye to the processes and practices.

In other words, it’s a devil’s dilemma.

And it’s a dilemma that legislators themselves are supportive of. Despite the low pay, there are lots of perks to being in the Texas legislature. Read about them here. If we are to make real ethical reforms in our system, the perks would have to go.

And they like their perks.

It’s so obvious. The old system has got to go. Texas has become too big in population to have a part-time legislature. Time demands on legislators are much higher now than in the past, legislator schedules no longer allow a citizen-legislator to hold down a full-time full paying job. The result is that Texas has an out-moded citizen-legislator system whose very construct invites corruption and influence peddling – even to the point that legislators cannot live at standard subsistence levels without bending the rules.

I’m with Chris Bell. Let’s let sanity prevail. Let’s have a full-time high quality legislature that is well-paid and limited to other outside sources of income.