What’s bringing this issue us is Rod Blagojevich – as in the former Illinois governor who is now into serving the sixth year of a 14-year prison term on charges that he tried to solicit bribes in exchange for political appointments.
BLAGOJEVICH,
OF COURSE, claims he didn’t have criminal intent. He claims any money given him
was purely political contributions made to Rod by his supporters.
An
excuse that some may snicker at (Political contributions?!? Yeah, suuuuuure!”)
and find absurd.
But
to the 19 political people (including one Republican, former state Rep. Angelo “Skip”
Saviano who now is village president of Elmwood Park), they wonder if there is
enough confusion that exists as to what is a legitimate campaign contribution
and what is a bribe.
In
their brief, they say they think the Supreme Court ought to take up the Blagojevich
appeal on the grounds that it would allow them to issue a legal opinion that,
once and for all, establishes what is a campaign contribution and what is a
bribe.
THEY
WANT THERE to be a definitive ruling that says just what a government official
is obligated to do for his financial backers, and what do those backers have a
right to expect in exchange for the checks they write out to political people.
Several current and former Illinois members ... |
Which
are legitimate questions that ought to be resolved. Although I don’t doubt that
some people will not want to hear of such talk. They’re the ones whose distaste
for Blagojevich is so intense they don’t care if he was grossly over-sentenced
for his offense.
Just
so long as he gets punished, they’re happy.
Heck,
Illinois Republican Party officials on Wednesday were using the legal brief
filed by so many Dems as reason to lambast likely Democratic gubernatorial
nominee J.B. Pritzker and tie him to Blagojevich.
... want high court to rule on what's a bribe? |
HOPING
THAT THE mere mention of the boogeyman they call Rod will be enough to ding
Pritzker even further. For them, Blagojevich serves a political purpose that is
far more important than any serious interpretation of a legal issue.
The
tie is that so many current Dem officials signed off on this brief – including Congressmen
Danny Davis, Bill Foster, Luis Gutierrez, Mike Quigley, Bobby Rush and Jan
Schakowsky. Along with former Congressmen Bill Lipinski, David Phelps and Glenn
Poshard.
This
issue will become so overburdened with partisan politics that the fear is any
legitimate legal ruling will become drowned in political slop. Because being
able to ding somebody with the Blagojevich label is all-important to some
people.
These
politicos who put their names on this brief probably are right that the high
court is going to have to be the final arbiter on this issue. That is, after
all, the reason for the Supreme Court’s existence.
ALTHOUGH
THERE ALSO are those individuals who think the high court itself ought to be
the rubber stamp to implement their partisan ideals (while squashing anything
the opposition party might try coming up with).
In
this Age of Trump, it might be asking too much to expect the Supreme Court to
stick its neck out and establish a stance on a crucial issue that could wind up
restricting Republican fundraising efforts as well as Democratic ones.
It’s almost as confusing as the ongoing quandary concerning Baseball’s Hall of Fame and whether ballplayers caught using steroids are worthy of admission. Sportswriters who make that decision have sought advice from the Hall of Fame – only to be told it is their issue to resolve.
Will
the Supreme Court ultimately ultimately take the same attitude; thereby
reducing the issue of political bribery to the same confusion as to whether
one-time Chicago Cub Sammy Sosa deserves his bronze plaque in Cooperstown,
N.Y.?
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment