The Washington Post, being the liberal rag that it is, points out that the campaign finance laws which Republican operatives have been commanded to claim were just passed are actually quite old.
"Using corporate funds for state election purposes has long been illegal in Texas, as it is in 17 other states," says the Post, but despite this simple fact, the talking points circulating around the net and here on Blogcritics are getting repeated anyway.
I'm looking at a case here, Castillo v. State, 59 S.W.3d 357, in which a man was convicted in 2001 of violating Texas Election code 253.003. If, as it has been alleged, the laws were enacted in 2002, then it's hard to explain this strange circumstance. The indictment cites Texas election codes 253.003, 253.094, and 253.104.
Furthermore 253.001 was amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 899, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1134, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
I'm pretty sure Delay's attorneys wouldn't make such completely baseless arguments unless there was at least some tenuous point with which to hammer away at. If anyone knows what it is, I would be interested to hear it. So far I haven't heard anyone who isn't TOTA. (translation? Talking Out of Their A....)
Ed:LisaM
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Alethinos
excellent post fella...
Alethinos
2 - Mark Saleski
talking out of their ass? that could take years to learn that!
3 - Dave Nalle
This has already been discussed extensively, but I guess you missed it. The issue is not whether corporated donations direct to campaigns are illegal, but whether you can be indicted for conspiracy if you are only indirectly involved in the campaign finance violation. That's the change made in the most recent version of the law which was after the contribution shuffling took place. The argument is going to be that because Delay never handled any money he can't be considered party to the crime.
BTW, Ronnie Earle already offered to plead this out to a meaningless misdemeanor - basically a traffic ticket - and Delay's lawyers refused. They want to take Earle to court and hammer him and his partisan attack machine once and for all. They even have witnesses from Earle's staff who are going to testify that Earle decided Delay was dirty before there was any evidence and went looking to 'fix up' the evidence to suit the crime.
Dave
4 - demabloggery
but whether you can be indicted for conspiracy if you are only indirectly involved in the campaign finance violation.
=====================
Whether someone is "directly" or "indirectly" involved is not how conspiracy is defined. Conspiracy is two or more persons operating together with the intent to commit a crime. The phrase "indirect" is a red herring put out by attorneys' to obfuscate the issue because the only thing they have to rely upon is how well Delay covered his tracks. I have taken exception because people have characterized Delay as being "tried under campaign laws enacted after the crime was committed" which is simply not true.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me the statute which they made that claim about; apparently it concerns
"indirect" or "direct" phraseology, which sounds more like a statement of fact than a statement of law.
5 - demabloggery
The argument is going to be that because Delay never handled any money he can't be considered party to the crime.
===============
I don't believe it for a second, and I would really like to see how the case unfolds. After all, if Earle is dirty, this will uncover it in the same way Starr was outed by his shenanigans.
6 - Dave Nalle
Well, Earle's guilty the same was Starr was - of taking trivialities and trying to blow them up into a crime, but mostly just launching a smear campaign in the process. If you smear the target enough then the fact that you don't have enough evidence to prove a case is irrelevant.
But Wallace, the defense argument is pretty clear. The Texas campign finance law was changed to broaden who could be included in a charged violation. Without that broadening of the applicability of the law the law doesn't apply to whatever involvement Delay had in the questionable fundraising. The change was made after the events, so applying it to him is ex post facto, and therefore probably not legally applicable.
Dave
7 - volt
1. there are 3 indictments not 1.
2. why are you so sure that delays attorneys would not make baseless arguments? have you never heard an attorney make a baseless argument before? have you not seen attorneys try to poison jury pools with false statements? more importantly, the attorneys work for delay who is the final arbiter of strategy. why else would did you see delay all over the talk show circuit defending himself? you cant possibly believe that his attorneys gave him that advice. no attorney in his/her right mind would give such advice b/c, as was the case here, the client can pin himself down to a story and/or contradict certain evidence. obviously delay ignored his attorneys and took the risk in an effort to save his leadership position in the house.
3. why defend delay? why has he earned your admiration? are you impressed by all his ethical lapses cited by the house ethics committee? do you relate well to his hypocrisy, especially regarding religion? do you like the idea of women being slaves in sweatshops and who are forced to have abortions if they become pregnant? do you like the idea of selling of selling government favors for money? are you pro bilking indian tribes of millions of dollars? do you think that the use of blackmail on the house floor as a bill vote is taking place is appropriate? do you think it is a good idea to extend votes on legislation as long as it is necessary to get the votes you need, even if it means bribing congressmen into changing their votes? and these are just the tip of the iceberg.
the point is, even if he is not found guilty of this crime, he still is not worth defending.
8 - demabloggery
1. There are three statutes mentioned in the indictment I posted. Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough, but all three statutes were passed long ago. The indictment doesn't mention the statute Dave is talking about, which was recently passed.
2. I was partly being facetious. Delay is the kind of arrogant arse that would screw himself.
3. Good question.
9 - Nancy
In DeLay's case, it's more like our parents would say: maybe you don't deserve blame this time, but here's for all the times we didn't catch you, that you did!
10 - Nancy
What I find most interesting is that DeLay was once on a first-name basis with cockroaches. Obviously, it affected his entire outlook on ethics ... or lack thereof.
11 - Dave Nalle
>>In DeLay's case, it's more like our parents would say: maybe you don't deserve blame this time, but here's for all the times we didn't catch you, that you did<<
Exactly, Nancy. But that's not how our legal system is supposed to work. Perverting the law to punish someone for other crimes on trumped up charges corrupts the entire system.
Dave
12 - Dave Nalle
>>2. why are you so sure that delays attorneys would not make baseless arguments? have you never heard an attorney make a baseless argument before? <<
Sure, I live in Ronnie Earle's county, so I've seen baseless arguments made all the time.
>>have you not seen attorneys try to poison jury pools with false statements? <<
Sure, Ronnie Earle did exactly that in advance of trying this case against Delay.
>>3. why defend delay? why has he earned your admiration?<<
He hasn't earned my admiration. Delay can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. The issue here is defending the legitiamacy of the legal process against the partisan perversion of vengeful extremists like Ronnie Earle.
Dave
13 - Nancy
Can't possibly pervert the system more than DeLay & everyone else up on the Hill (& in the WH) have done. A plague on both their houses.
14 - steve
Don't even START with coroporate donations to pay for campaigns. Kerry had the Heinz Fortune, not to mention Sony and Viacom at his disposal. you make it sound like the right has an endless depth to its pockets while the left has nothing to show. get a life!
15 - Lono
Dave, come on. This is a completely retarded statement:
his partisan attack machine once and for all.
Why? Because the serious majority of his indictments have been against Democrats. You must know that by now. Like the other writers said, why defend this piece of crap?
I understand justice has to take it's toll, and it probably will. But DeLay is a vile piece of crminal shit. The whole Republican machine is coming apart right now, and this is no time to defend any of them.
If you want to defend the GOP's principles, then find someone who embraces them and get behind them! Remember how the GOP likes to pretend they are about fiscal responsibility and state's rights?
I would LOVE to see that. Hell, even I'd vote for someone who demonstrated those principles. In the meantime, save yourself and get off these scumbags' bandwagon.
16 - Lono
Oh, and Steve... you are a tool. Teresa Heinz Kerry divested herself of the Heinz name and fortune a long time ago.
Now, I know you Repubs are absolutely terrified of a successful woman and didn't like John Kerry (what with all that public service and all). I have to say I am just impressed that Rove didn't manage to paint Teresa Kerry as gay like he has with every other female opponent.
The concern isn't about rich people influencing politics, for that is how politics work. When you do it super-illegally under everyone's nose... you get whacked on the snout with a newspaper. Just like when my dog tries to misappropriate my dinner.
Is no one seeing a trend here? Frist, Rove, Cheney, Cunningham, DeLay?
these are your leaders. vote them out, they do not represent us. Vote in people who do!
17 - demabloggery
The issue here is defending the legitiamacy of the legal process against the partisan perversion of vengeful extremists like Ronnie Earle.
=====================
And how outraged were you, exactly, when Starr was fishing for three years?
18 - demabloggery
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with the statute....
19 - Dave Nalle
>>And how outraged were you, exactly, when Starr was fishing for three years?<<
More bored than outraged. If there was outrage it was mostly at the $54 million he wasted on the stupid investigation. Starr's investigation had the small merit of at least uncovering activity which was entertaining.
Dave
20 - demabloggery
More bored than outraged.
==================
So let me get this straight. accusing a sitting president of getting a blowjob after 54 million dollars worth of investigation in which the only real substantive allegations that ever surfaced were "perjury", but an investigation that finds funneling campaign contributions illegally in order to bum-rush the texas legislature and then gerrymander the districts is outrageous? As we speak, Delay has been booked. I'm still waiting for the statute concerning "conspiracy". You can save the time and just realize that conspiracy is a common-law crime that predates the existence of texas.
21 - Dave Nalle
Ok, both are fairly outrageous, but Earle's investigation hurts people here in Travis County directly, so it troubles me more.
As for that 'gerrymandering', I like to call it 'un-gerrymandering' since it just made an equitable division of seats - virtually identical with the political breakdown of the population - by reversing the Democratic gerrymandering of the previous decade.
And again, the conspiracy issue is more than just common law tradition in this case. It's a matter of extending the scope of conspiracy to include people who had no direct knowledge of or involvement in the alleged crime just because they were associated with the organization which supposedly committed the crime.
Remember, Earle already offered to plead this out to what amounted to the equivalent of a traffic ticket - 3rd degree misdemeanor - which would have left Delay in position as speaker with a small fine and no jail time. Delay chose not to take that offer. In that context - more than anything those involved may have said - I find it very hard to take these charges seriously.
Dave