Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Some perspective on campaign contribution reports
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Could there be a mistrial in Rod Blagojevich’s case? At least one appellate justice thinks so. An appellate court ruled earlier this month that Judge Zagel should reexamine his decision that kept Blagojevich juror names a secret. But Judge Richard Posner has since filed an opinion blasting the ruling and defending Zagel…
In his opinion, Posner quickly came to Zagel’s defense. In the first sentence, he wrote: “An experienced trial judge made a reasonable determination that the release of jurors’ names before the end of the trial would expose the jurors to the widespread mischief that is a daily if not hourly occurrence on the Internet.”
Posner then began a scathing review of Easterbrook’s decision, calling it “unsound and confusing.”
He attacked the presumption of media access. “Jurors are entitled to be treated with respectful regard for their privacy and dignity, rather than as media prey.”
He said the panel ignored the consequences of Zagel having to possibly renege on a promise made to jurors and argued that there’s no need for a further hearing. “The jurors may well be upset, concerned for their privacy, fearful of the prospect of harassment and angry at having been induced by false pretenses to agree to take months out of their life to perform jury service.”
Posner even went so far as to say that Zagel might have to declare a mistrial.
Let’s hope not.
* Judge Zagel apparently didn’t want this tape played in court, but I, for one, am quite curious about what the heck was going on…
[Blagojevich attorney Aaron Goldstein] is arguing that some of the blocked calls point to Blagojevich’s state of mind when he was allegedly bartering over the Senate seat. Zagel said he was surprised the defense would want some of the calls played to the jury.
“The state of mind he is discussing is shutting down state government and blaming somebody else,” Zagel said of one conversation. “If you tell me he wasn’t serious, I believe you.”
Goldstein said it showed what Blagojevich was dealing with in Illinois in 2008.
“We don’t have an objection to the part about shutting down state government,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Reid Schar said with a smirk to the judge, who said he would make a final decision about the call after hearing Blagojevich on the stand.
Blagojevich was planning a government shutdown and then blaming somebody else for it? Madigan? But what was the premise? Fascinating.
* Blagojevich loved to ask lobbyists if they were making lots of money back when he was governor. He made a few of his friends quite rich…
John Wyma, a chief of staff during Blagojevich’s congressional career, testified this week that he made “better than $1 million” in his first year as a Springfield lobbyist.
Alonzo “Lon” Monk, a former chief of staff to the governor, testified he got $750,000 in his first year as a lobbyist after successfully running Blagojevich’s 2006 re-election campaign. Former campaign spokesman Doug Scofield, who briefly served as Blagojevich’s first deputy governor, also took on a host of lobbying clients. […]
Though his firm wasn’t as large as Wyma’s or Monk’s, Scofield still became a lobbyist for Blagojevich’s biggest campaign donor, the Service Employees International Union, and came back to work for Blagojevich’s re-election bid in 2006. One of his first clients also was the Illinois Math and Science Academy, which state records show paid Scofield Communications more than $283,000.
* Related…
* Blago trial shows cleanup is needed
* Up next: Blagojevich brothers
* Brothers slated to testify early on in defense case
* Defense May Start with Robert Blagojevich
* Judge to decide which tapes make defense cut
* Judge: Blago lawyers can play some unheard tapes
* Blagojevich insiders traded on access, now testify for prosecution
* Our View: The man who never should have been governor
* Bashing by Blagojevich a badge of honor for many
* ADDED: Justin Bieber to play Young Blago in upcoming TV biopic
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 10:17 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Some perspective on campaign contribution reports
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The fact that Wyma, Monk and Scofield are exposed now as greedy and despicable men does not excuse the lobbying system that permitted them to enrich themselves. These men profited because we as citizens tolerate a lobbying system that allows
politicans and their cronies to enrich themselves.
And we pay the price in inflated costs of all government services.
Comment by cassandra Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 10:24 am
Cassandra, you have no concept on how contract lobbying works. I would say that the process reduces the cost of government services.
Comment by Knome Sane Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 10:26 am
That Judge Posner is the hardest working man in law business. I was at Borders the other day and he had two new books out in the last year. Plus, he lectures at UC.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 10:27 am
How interesting. A defense of the multibillion dollar government lobbying industry. Well, it is Illinois.
Are you saying that contractors don’t price the lobbying costs into asking price.
Comment by cassandra Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 10:30 am
cassandra, is there something that you aren’t out of your mind angry about? Sheesh.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 10:31 am
These men profited because we as citizens tolerate a lobbying system that allows politicans [sic] and their cronies to enrich themselves.
cassandra - what would your alternative be?
Comment by dave Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 10:37 am
no, no, no, please do not let this happen….no mistrial….
Comment by Loop Lady Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 10:38 am
Cassandra, let me explain it this way: an entity with an interest before the legislature/administration gets to pick the contract lobbyist, not the other way around. And to answer your question about the cost of lobbying priced into the bid, I’d argue no, it’s not. The lowest bid is the lowest bid and the cost of lobbying is the same for legal, HR, PR, finance, etc.
Comment by Knome Sane Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 10:41 am
Let’s try to remember that a mistrial doesn’t let PB off the hook. It does most likely mean a new trial which will be a hardship for all. We will endeavor to persevere.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 10:43 am
So let me get this right… someone (or someones) who wants to influence government pays a close associate of the Governor $1M and things “magically” work in their favor? And that’s a good thing?
Only in Illinois is the rule “it’s not what you know but it’s who you know”.
I’d like to see the trials of everyone who bought a state contract, board appointment or job… THAT would go far to clean up government.
Comment by John Bambenek Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 11:01 am
John, those people are generally considered victims by the prosecution. You don’t prosecute victims.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 11:05 am
*Only in Illinois is the rule “it’s not what you know but it’s who you know”.*
Illinois has it own unique problems, but we are not an outlier here, whether it is in government or the private sector. This adage is true in all sector and all states. A little perspective would be helpful.
Comment by Montrose Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 11:10 am
So-if the contract always goes to the lowest, best bidder, why do we need lobbyists at all?
Rich-I don’t think I’m the only one in Illinois or the country who believes that government lobbying has gotten way out of control, and that it has a negative effect on citizens’ welfare.
Most Americans believe government can be bought.Lobbying is one of the avenues of purchase.
That doesn’t put me anywhere near an angry fringe group.
Comment by cassandra Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 11:11 am
So let me get this right… someone (or someones) who wants to influence government pays a close associate of the Governor $1M and things “magically” work in their favor? And that’s a good thing?
Same question I asked cassandra. Would your alternative be?
I swear you conservatives believe in free speech. Maybe I’m wrong?
Comment by dave Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 11:14 am
Rich- if you are suggesting the government need only prosecute those who solicited or took bribes and not the individuals who agree to pay them then you are only asking that the system be perpetuated since the bribe payers will certainly find new officials willing to oblige
Comment by Sue Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 11:20 am
===if you are suggesting the government need only prosecute those===
What I’m saying is how prosecutors usually treat those people. Not how they should be treated.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 11:25 am
My only question with the lobbying cash made by Wyma, Monk and Scofield is simple: since we all know how Blago did business, who’s to say some entities or government bodies didn’t feel pressure to hire these three (and others)? If that were to be the case - and I’m not saying it was, just hypothesizing - it’s not out of the realm of possibility that such hires may not have been the result of a bid.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 11:26 am
My god…has anyone out there ever thought of
using their local legislators to lobby on their
behalf?? Taxes pay legislators….and you need more taxes to pay a lobbyist??? 243K from the Math and Science academy!! Just wonder if their
legislators were asked for help…
Comment by polwatcher Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 11:31 am
I am not sure what alternate reality many of you operate in, but lobbying is a fact of life. We all do it in different ways and different times. It is how we get heard by people making the decision. It is just formalized on the government level.
This outrage that a person’s decision can be influenced by the right person is so overblown. A million different issues are floating around Springfield at a given moment. If you want your issue to get attention, you need someone - a lobbyist - down there to make noise. Some people are better at that than others. Those people are going to command higher salaries.
Lobbyist are not evil. They serve a valuable function. There are lines that can be crossed, and those that cross those lines should be held accountable, but everyone should just take a deep breath.
Comment by Montrose Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 11:48 am
“I’d like to see the trials of everyone who bought a state contract, board appointment or job… THAT would go far to clean up government.”
“John, those people are generally considered victims by the prosecution. You don’t prosecute victims.”
Couldn’t we at least fumigate them?
Comment by Leave a Light on George Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 12:01 pm
Again, I ask the same question. What is the alternative to lobbyists?
Do you want to ban lobbyists?
Comment by dave Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 12:01 pm
Lets see- According to todays Tribune- Provena has an issue pending before the HFPB, a state agency while during Blago’s tenure is exposed for being corrupt - they retain John Wyma as a lobbyist and 30 days after the state agency takes action in favor of Provena, an affiliate of Provena makes a 25 K donation to the Governor’s campaign fund-are we missing something here in terms of why no one was prosecuted based on these facts or is this what we are now calling effective lobbying
Comment by Sue Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 12:16 pm
If you can’t run with the Big Dogs, stay on the porch!
Comment by WARDOG Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 12:39 pm
Our community had our Mayor trying to get STAR bonds the same time another community with a high profile lobbyist was trying to get STAR bonds. Same types of towns same problems same opportunities. Guess who got the STAR BONDS.
Comment by Ronbo Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 12:51 pm
“The jurors may well be upset, concerned for their privacy, fearful of the prospect of harassment and angry at having been induced by false pretenses to agree to take months out of their life to perform jury service.”
Ummm, I’ve served twice on different juries and in neither case do I remember actually having agreed to take time out of my life. It was simply the price of citizenship, not a voluntary commitment.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 12:54 pm
If professional lobbying no longer existed, everyone would have individually write, call, and visit their legislators in order to communicate their support, or opposition, to particular bills.
I suppose this might be a good thing up to a point in that it would get people more involved, but seriously, how many of you have the time, talent, or inclination to keep up on EVERY single bill that might have an effect on your profession, or on issues important to you? How many people can drop everything and run to Springfield when there’s an important vote scheduled? Well, that’s what lobbyists are for — they do that for you, so you don’t have to. In many ways they perform the same function as attorneys — they represent you in legislative and executive (rather than judicial) proceedings where you do not have the knowledge or resources to represent yourself. As such, lobbyists are no more inherently evil than attorneys (though that’s probably not saying much
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 12:56 pm
Posner v Easterbrook is always good for a chuckle. How those two egos sit on a panel together is beyond me. The dire warning of a mistrial, though, shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Posner writes dissents like Scalia - like the world will end tomorrow because the majority ignored his brilliant insights.
On the horrible corrupting influence of money, the problem is (and remains) that conservatives on the Supreme Court and most incumbents in Congress are content in the myth that money is just another form of speech and therefore subject to First Amendment protection. As a result, we all have to take the corruption that ensues from massive spending on campaigns (and limit public office to those who can raise those funds, from lobbyists/groups of various stripes or their personal wealth).
Comment by Berkeley Bear Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 1:20 pm
Berkeley Bear,
You don’t think money equates to speech? It does, especially in today’s environment.
Do you think the NRA carve-out (DISCLOSE act is a LIBERAL bill) is fair to a group that has 499,999 members? Should unions be excluded from lobbying and speech too?
Instant and transparent disclosure of money used by third parties would solve this issue, as would the removal of donation caps (also immediately disclosed). Our politicians pander simply because they need to grovel for every dime, and current laws allow donations to be masked.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 1:52 pm
Get rid of all campaign. Replace it with one 30 min you tube video.
Canidates get 30 min and one shot to show us their pros and their oppoents con’s and were done.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 2:42 pm
Still waiting for an answer from someone. Anyone.
If you don’t like lobbyists, what do you suggest?
Comment by dave Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 2:48 pm
Posner writes a lot. But I dont’ think he’s going to roll on Zagel for Blago.
Zagel has been to a world’s fair and a rodeo. He was a SOI cabinet officer. He was married to Pam Zekman. Obviously, the dude has walked on the nasty part of town.
Blago is in deep stuff with this guy.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 3:28 pm
Dave:
I would say we need a government that is less powerful. When we permit a government to be so powerful that it can make and break businesses and individuals, we spawn a massive lobbying industry, just as we inevitably make our government more and more dishonest, driven by the huge stakes involved.
Comment by Upstate Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 4:05 pm
Cincy,
I believe that money has an impact, but I do not agree with the strained analyses in Buckley v. Vallejo and Citizens United that converted political actions (monetary contributions) into First Amendment expressions making meaningful regulation almost impossible. You do realize Citizens United just struck down our last real effort at ensuring disclosure for anything other than “hard” direct contributions to individual candidates?
Plus, if monetary contributions are really a form of fully protected expression, then anonymity should be ensured. As your own sobriquet shows, there is a long history of protecting the right of people to speak to political matters anonymously - why should monetary contributions have to be disclosed if they are speech?
There are lots of other models for elections that don’t require the obscene amounts of money our nation now relies on to fill even relatively low level positions. But as long as the SC sees money as political speech, the costs are going to keep escalating.
Comment by Berkeley Bear Friday, Jul 16, 10 @ 4:19 pm