Post by jeffolie on Jun 4, 2012 13:36:41 GMT -6
donate = bribe US Sup Ct, can jail opponents
The line defining a campaign donation becoming a criminal bribe When " ... “explicit promise” to take action as a reward for a campaign contribution ... "
Opening this door allows jailing political opponents which more commonly happens in countries we consider less than free which may happen when prosecutors win criminal bribery cases for campaign contributions that " ... “explicit promise” to take action as a reward for a campaign contribution ... ".
=================================
Supreme Court rejects bribery appeal from former Ala. Gov. Siegelman
Also
Public support of the Supreme Court hits 25-year low
Pelosi expects court to vote 6-3 in favor of Obama healthcare law
Supreme Court backs Secret Service arrest of man confronting Cheney
June 4, 2012
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court turned down an appeal Monday from former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman challenging his bribery conviction, leaving in place rulings that say prosecutors and jurors can decide when a favor based on a campaign contribution amounts to a bribe.
The court’s action means Siegelman is likely to be sent back to prison to finish his term. In 2007, a judge in Alabama sentenced him to seven years in prison, but he was released a year later to appeal his conviction.
He had won the support of more than 100 top state attorneys as well as prominent election law experts. They had urged the court to hear his case and to clarify the line between a legal campaign contribution and an illegal bribe.
In the past, the high court has said that the process of seeking campaign contributions is protected by the First Amendment. However, the law has also allowed officials to be prosecuted if they make an “explicit promise” to take action as a reward for a campaign contribution.
In Siegelman’s case, jurors agreed with the prosecutors that the Alabama governor had appointed a wealthy hospital executive to a state hospital board as a reward for his contributing $500,000 to a campaign fund that sought to win approval for a statewide education lottery. Siegelman supported the lottery proposal, but it was defeated by the voters.
Siegelman’s lawyers argued the prosecution for bribery was tainted because none of the campaign money enriched the governor.
Richard Scrushy, the founder and chief executive of HealthSouth, had contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to several Republican governors who had in turn appointed him to the hospital board. When Siegelman, a Democrat, was elected governor, aides to the two men met and reportedly agreed the new governor expected similar support from Scrushy.
A week after Scrushy wrote a $250,000 check to support the lottery campaign, Siegelman reappointed him to the hospital board.
The U.S. attorney in Montgomery, Alabama charged both Scrushy and Siegelman with bribery, and they were convicted in 2007
www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-rejects-bribery-appeal-from-former-ala-gov-siegelman-20120604,0,2298978.story
The line defining a campaign donation becoming a criminal bribe When " ... “explicit promise” to take action as a reward for a campaign contribution ... "
Opening this door allows jailing political opponents which more commonly happens in countries we consider less than free which may happen when prosecutors win criminal bribery cases for campaign contributions that " ... “explicit promise” to take action as a reward for a campaign contribution ... ".
=================================
Supreme Court rejects bribery appeal from former Ala. Gov. Siegelman
Also
Public support of the Supreme Court hits 25-year low
Pelosi expects court to vote 6-3 in favor of Obama healthcare law
Supreme Court backs Secret Service arrest of man confronting Cheney
June 4, 2012
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court turned down an appeal Monday from former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman challenging his bribery conviction, leaving in place rulings that say prosecutors and jurors can decide when a favor based on a campaign contribution amounts to a bribe.
The court’s action means Siegelman is likely to be sent back to prison to finish his term. In 2007, a judge in Alabama sentenced him to seven years in prison, but he was released a year later to appeal his conviction.
He had won the support of more than 100 top state attorneys as well as prominent election law experts. They had urged the court to hear his case and to clarify the line between a legal campaign contribution and an illegal bribe.
In the past, the high court has said that the process of seeking campaign contributions is protected by the First Amendment. However, the law has also allowed officials to be prosecuted if they make an “explicit promise” to take action as a reward for a campaign contribution.
In Siegelman’s case, jurors agreed with the prosecutors that the Alabama governor had appointed a wealthy hospital executive to a state hospital board as a reward for his contributing $500,000 to a campaign fund that sought to win approval for a statewide education lottery. Siegelman supported the lottery proposal, but it was defeated by the voters.
Siegelman’s lawyers argued the prosecution for bribery was tainted because none of the campaign money enriched the governor.
Richard Scrushy, the founder and chief executive of HealthSouth, had contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to several Republican governors who had in turn appointed him to the hospital board. When Siegelman, a Democrat, was elected governor, aides to the two men met and reportedly agreed the new governor expected similar support from Scrushy.
A week after Scrushy wrote a $250,000 check to support the lottery campaign, Siegelman reappointed him to the hospital board.
The U.S. attorney in Montgomery, Alabama charged both Scrushy and Siegelman with bribery, and they were convicted in 2007
www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-rejects-bribery-appeal-from-former-ala-gov-siegelman-20120604,0,2298978.story