The Law Should Be Different For the Rich and Powerful

Tom Campbell, a Texas lawyer who once tried to unseat Tom DeLay in a Republican primary, engages in an interesting thought experiment, arguing that President Obama should pardon Tom DeLay. I have to assume that Campbell recognizes that there is no chance that DeLay will receive a pardon - a remedy normally not granted before a convicted criminal has completed his sentence and a subsequent five year waiting period, let alone where the offender displays no remorse and is openly contemptuous of the court and jury that convicted him. (Campbell argues that some of that scorn is deserved, but that's hardly the point.) Also, not even Lewis "Scooter" Libby received a pardon. It would take the right-wing noise machine all of two seconds to start bleating about how "Even President Obama understands that DeLay was railroaded by evil Democratic Party operatives."

Campbell attempts to draw a parallel between the odious Charles Rangel (or was I supposed to say "Charlie Rangel isn't a bad person?"), whose various ethical breaches earned him a stern, "You shouldn'ta oughta done that" from his colleagues in the House. A better comparison is to Dan Rostenkowski, who served time in prison and eventually got a pardon a few years before his waiting period would have been up. Or, if you're more charitable, to Scooter Libby whose commutation allowed him to avoid any chance of incarceration as he appealed his conviction.

Some of what Campbell writes is pretty typical of calls for leniency against middle class and white collar criminals - their peers often close circle. Campbell argues, "DeLay is not a bad man", which may be true but does not provide a basis for excusing somebody from a jail or prison sentence. It may not be fair to define a person by his worst acts and conduct, but that's what happens when you're tried for and convicted of a crime - your good acts are, at most, relevant to your sentence. I don't think Wesley Snipes is a "bad man", but off he went.

Another reason that people who are financially successful should avoid prison? Because "they've suffered enough" from their loss of prestige and position:

He has been punished enough. He lost his position as majority leader and his congressional seat. He lost his place on the national stage.

You think he deserves prison time? That's because only prison will "satisfy [your] vindictive desires". Never mind legislatively defined penalties, minimum sentences, sentencing guidelines, and how they impact others - if you argue that DeLay should be treated equally with other convicted offenders, and thus should be punished under laws and policies he helped fashion, it can only be because you're a big fat meanie. Meanwhile, the impact of incarceration on a "blue collar" criminal, or the ripple effects on his family? Who cares, right? DeLay is "one of us".

But really, a big part of the arguments in favor of people like Tom DeLay and Conrad Black is that they had teams of lawyers analyzing their moves and advising them how they could ostensibly push their conduct right up to the line of criminality without crossing it. I'm reminded of this every time we get a new essay from Conrad Black and his defenders - "Black looted his companies, fair and square." Yes, being rich and powerful enough to have your lawyers advise you as to how to legally siphon hundreds of millions or billions of dollars out of your company - and away from its shareholders - will make it much more difficult to identify a crime and to prosecute you. After all, if that weren't the case would you be spending millions of shareholder dollars on that advice in the first place? But at the end of the day what we're really talking about is a system in which the rich and powerful can game the system, loot their companies or the taxpayer, and walk away with billions - but if an ordinary person tries the same thing on a smaller scale, he'll probably be looking at jail or prison time. (But that's okay because he's probably a "bad person", right?)

Campbell offers an additional reason to pardon DeLay - he has powerful friends who might otherwise take revenge - "Prison will satisfy the vindictive desires of some but will trigger in others a desire for revenge". Aw heck, by that standard, let's just pardon everybody held at Guantanamo Bay.

The Happy (Influence) Peddler

David Broder reminds us how much the world he loves has changed. Oh, sure, Charlie Rangel deserved to be censured but, just s when Dan Rostenkowski fell to corruption charges, it's a sad day nonetheless.

I think I can tell you why. The pursuit of power is what brings people into politics, and some of them pursue it with a grim determination never to be outmaneuvered. You can stand back and watch them work, but there seems to be no joy in them - or in the spectacle they provide. It's a deadly serious business, this fundraising, vote-counting, always manipulating treadmill, for the Tom DeLays and the Nancy Pelosis of this world.

Perhaps it's worthy of note that Tom DeLay was recently convicted of money laundering? You would think that would merit mention under the circumstances, although that might say a bit too much about Broder, "It's not the corruption that bothers me, or even the conviction - it's that he was so grim." Influence peddling, it seems, should make you happy.

What was different about Rangel and Rostenkowski was the sheer joy with which they played the game and the way they would let you know that, whatever the policy stakes, a game is what it was to them.

How did they let you know? They would analyze their own motives with the same disarming candor they brought to their calculations of their colleagues' maneuvers.

Somehow I think Broder means something different than, "They openly admitted that pretty much everybody in Congress is, at some level, for sale," but that's nonetheless a reasonable interpretation.

Broder tells us,

I remember conversations with [Rangel] when he was engaged in what may have been his greatest coup: helping free Hillary Clinton from the confines of the East Wing and converting her into a successful Senate candidate in New York.

The number of people who were determined to keep that from happening were legion, both in Washington and New York. But Rangel knew them all, and he knew how to get around them - by co-opting or by mowing them down, whatever was required. And he loved every minute of this game - which he played for unselfish purposes, not to expand his own influence.

Let me get this straight - the evidence David Broder offers of Rangel's selflessness is that he helped one of the most politically connected people in the world become a United States Senator, happily pulling in chits, trading favors and bulldozing obstacles along the way? And Broder knows that Rangel had no expectation that he would benefit from his ongoing relationship with President Clinton and his political supporters, let alone any future benefit from his relationship with Senator Clinton? And we know all of this simply because... that's the way Broder spins the story? Why am I left less than completely satisfied....

Meanwhile, Broder assures us, people like Rostenkowski and Charlie Rangel aren't greedy (don't be deceived by your lying eyes). Broder's explanation?

Often, they were just sloppy about the demands of the new era of politics.

Which apparently involves the unrealistic expectation that you'll be reasonably honest in your financial dealings and disclosures, and not commit any felonies on the job? The horror.

Broder informs us,

And [Rostenkowski] always hugely enjoyed the game he was part of - never burdened by whether it was negotiating with the Treasury secretary or regaling his pals late at night at his favorite steak and bourbon joint.

How often, I wonder, was Broder among those pals? And who picked up the tab?

Dana Milbank shares a different perspective, that we have "A House full of Rangels".

The rules governing members' behavior were proven so lax as to be irrelevant. The vast majority of transgressors are never punished - Rangel was penalized only because he himself asked the ethics committee to investigate some of the allegations against him.

To be sure, Rangel deserved punishment for his wrongdoing, which included failing to pay taxes on his beach house in the Dominican Republic and improperly using his office for charitable fundraising. But in the 30 minutes allotted to him for his defense on the House floor Thursday evening, Rangel and his friends made a compelling case that he was being punished for doing things that lawmakers do routinely.

"The only examples of anybody sanctioned for tax matters in this House in the history of the United States have been those who didn't pay taxes on bribes they received," Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) argued in Rangel's defense. Several members had a chuckle over their laxity.

The most telling Congressional whining came from Rep. Peter King:

And Rep. Peter King (N.Y.), one of the few Republicans to oppose censure for Rangel, implored his colleagues to "step back" and reconsider. "Let us apply the same standard of justice to Charlie Rangel that has been applied to everyone else, and that all of us would want applied to ourselves."

It's really difficult to read that as something other than, "I'm in huge trouble if somebody pokes around for the skeletons in my closet - and many of you are, as well." But buck up, Members of Congress - if you can learn to revel in the sheer joy of influence peddling, no matter what that involves, even if you're caught and convicted you can count on David Broder to write a glowing obituary for your Congressional career.