Featured Weekly Commentary


Anniston Star, Editorial Board, May 21, 2012

When prosecutors look at former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman they must see a version of Pig-Pen, the Peanuts comics figure constantly obscured by a cloud of dust. Look at that dirty mess, we can hear prosecutors exclaiming. There must be something illegal going on.

Of course, our legal system depends on more than appearances. Looking guilty is not the same thing as actual guilt. Yet, the prosecution of Siegelman on federal corruption charges amounts to little more than singling out the former governor of Alabama for something commonplace in modern politics. We hope the Supreme Court will take a hard look at the case, and clear up what looks like a case of selective prosecution.

After a three-year investigation, federal prosecutors in Alabama alleged that Siegelman was involved in a bribery scheme while governor. When their first case fell apart in 2004, they came back a year later with another indictment. In June 2006, Siegelman was convicted on seven of 33 counts.

Prosecutors claimed that Siegelman, who was governor from 1999 until 2003, and Richard Scrushy, then-CEO of HealthSouth, conspired together. Scrushy contributed money to the governor’s pro-lottery campaign — $500,000 in total — and in return Siegelman appointed the CEO to a seat on an unpaid-but-important state hospital board. The jury agreed, even though there was no smoking gun tying Siegelman and Scrushy to an explicit “give X to get Y” arrangement. Without it, critics of the verdict say, a lot more politicians who reward contributors with appointments could soon find themselves on trial.

We could start with the president. Several of his ambassador appointments went to men and women who gave heavily to the Obama 2008 campaign. And that’s not new. According to the American Academy of Diplomacy, over the past 50 years 1-in-3 ambassadorships have gone to generous contributors to chief executives. Then there are the governors who appoint contributors to various state boards and the lawmakers who find a way to write bills that just happen to benefit those who give lavishly to their campaigns.

Unseemly? Yes.

Damaging to the public’s trust in government? Absolutely.

Criminal? Not according to the nation’s long history of political contributions.

Read more here.



Editor's Choice: Click below for the Justice Integrity Project's monthly archive of cutting-edge news excerpts for May 2012.


Read more ...