Unfortunately, CNN isn't the most neutral news source in the world, but the following video will give you a general idea about the situation at hand (I wonder what Fox has to say about this).
I remember speaking with Mr. Silton on Monday and expressing my disgust at the fact that DeLay had yet to be convicted for his antics while several of his minions (i.e., members of his congressional staff) have been rotting in jail for years. Well, that was quite the timely discussion. On a personal level, I am very pleased that justice has been served and have been a staunch opponent of DeLay for years.
Some of Tom DeLay's most egregious crimes involved his insider deals with the (now incarcerated) lobbyist, Jack Abromoff. In the late 1990s, all was going well for Jack Abramoff. He was a man of big money, big connections, and even bigger aspirations. As a top-flight lobbyist for Preston Gates & Ellis, a firm of wide-scale global prominence, Abramoff was one of the most successful lobbyists and businessmen on Capitol Hill, raking in tens of millions of dollars every year. Seemingly a political genius, Abramoff won significant privileges for his clientele. From helping Tyco, Inc. avoid tax liability to keeping Native American casinos open, Abramoff seemed to be able to do it all. However, what goes up, must come down, and in the early 2000s, Abramoff was booked for bribing public officials (most notably, Tom DeLay and Bob Ney) and defrauding Native American tribes out of tens of millions of dollars. What began as a simple quest for success and power on the parts of Abramoff, DeLay, and Ney ended as a deceptive ploy to undermine the integrity of the American political system and the interests of the American people.
Currently, DeLay has only been charged with money laundering, but I am sure that there are many, many more convictions coming his way. Considering that DeLay was one of the most prominent American politicians in the 1990s, his corruption puts the entire American political system and democratic process under fire.
Is there any way that we can lessen the likelihood of corruption on the Congressional level to stop more DeLays from springing up in the future?
4 comments:
Thank you for the information, Amrit! I remember I heard about the Tom DeLay trial on the news the day we watched that video in class, and I am also now pleased to hear about the conclusion of the trial, though appeals will continue and Tom DeLay has insisted on his innocence. This may sound idealistic or naive, but no corrupt practice in the U.S. political process should be overlooked or go unpunished, esepcially in Congress, because the legislative branch is (or should be) the closest to the people. It is disheartening to think that a person with so much power and influence engaged in these corrupt practices.
What I am interested in is Tom DeLay's sentence, which will be determined by Judge Pat Priest in the next month. His punishment can range from simply being put on probation to life in prison.
An interesting article on Democrats' reactions to DeLay's conviction: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7310852.html
Happy Thanksgiving weekend, everyone!
Thanks for bringing novel insight to the table, Sarah. I find it rather curious that there is such a wide range of potential sentences for DeLay. Maybe more than one reform is in order here.
First of all, that's an Oling-caliber pun right there.
Secondly, while I'm admittedly kind of happy to see him burn for all the nonsense he's put through the American government (both illegal and otherwise), what interests me is the answer to your last question. I'm not sure there's really a good answer to that question. I've read up on the Abramoff story, for example, and was disgusted and outraged by it. However, it's difficult to write a legal definition of what the difference is between a "contribution" and a "bribe". For example, Abramoff could just say that he was contributing to the politicians that he bribed and that it was completely unrelated to any actions they took, and it would be difficult to legally prove otherwise.
You could place caps on how much money a politician could recieve from any given source. Say, that sounds like a good idea. What's that? Citizens United? So much for that. Besides, Abramoff's nonsense happened before that decision anyway, which proves that those rules weren't being enforced strictly enough. And besides, you'd still run into that first problem.
There's one other option that admittedly is a massive change and even hairier than overturning Citizens United. What about banning all campaign contributions and giving all candidates public funding? If you think about it, as crazy as it sounds, it has some real benefits. Oftentimes, political experience comes at the cost of having "ties" to Washington and by extension, its money game. With this rule, you get the best of worlds: a competent, experienced candidate who isn't bound to moneied interests. Now, instead of providing "contributions" (or bribes, depending on how cynical you are), lobbyists could instead try to convince candidates using the merits of their policies rather than the money that comes with them. It even gives all candidates equal chances to get their message out. In effect, (almost) everybody wins - the only losers are the corrupt and the greedy.
I'm sorry that was long and rambly, and I'm sorry it wasn't really about DeLay. But I do think it's an interesting approach to that core question.
I hope you all enjoyed your Thanksgiving!
Post a Comment