"Have You No Shame?" Actually, no, I don't.

Congrats to the these attorneys general for taking their constitutional roles seriously. Of course they are politically motivated, but an order of magnitude less than the Dems who are bribing their way to passing a health care bill that doubles down on everything wrong with health insurance and, with straight faces, congratulate themselves in the process.

And of course, check out the quote towards the end of the story from Rep. Clyburn who thinks the problem with political bribes isn't that they're too big, but that they're too small.


Anonymous said...

Unlike the Medicare Part D debate, when "The chairman of the Commerce Committee, Representative Billy Tauzin (R-La.), coauthored the bill while negotiating a $2-million-per-year job as a lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America", or calling a vote at 3 a.m., holding it open for three hours while "Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Representative Candice Miller (R-Mich.) tried to bribe [Nick Smith] with political favors to change his vote".

In contrast to the actual bribery that went on under the GOP, Nelson negotiated a benefit for his state. He did not receive any personal benefit. That's not bribery.

The Daily Pander said...

Nice distinction Anon, have to disagree. It's an actual bribe, political instead of personal. Would he have voted for it absent this little gift? Of course not. If the bill is a good idea, his state shouldn't need, or get, a carve out. But of course the payment is an unambiguous statement.

And if you're right, then what DeLay and Miller did isn't a bribe. They plied Smith with "political favors" which is what Harry did to Ben. If it's a bribe when Tom did it, it's a bribe when Harry did it.

Sick when Repubs did it, sick when Dems do it.

Steven L. Baerson said...

Our friend, Anonymous, often likes to excuse bad behavior with other bad behavior.

Anonymous said...

Nick Smith said a house leader offered $100000 for his son's campaign to replace him. That is a bribe, not merely a 'political favor' such as an endorsement. It is a totally different beast than negotiation over the content of a bill, however vile you may find that bill.

The Daily Pander said...

$100,000 to a son's campaign? Sounds like a political favor to me.

See how easy it is to rationalize? Now, imagine being in Congress, where rationalization is job requirement.

Anonymous said...

You could rationalize it as a political favor, or you could read the law on bribery and conclude very quickly that promising $100,000 for the son's campaign is an attempt at bribery.

Adding an amendment to a bill in order to gain an additional vote does not mean the legal definition of bribery. If it did, the passage of most laws involves bribery.

I completely agree that the particular amendments added to the bill to gain the approval of Sen. Nelson are distasteful. There were 39 republicans who could have seen to it that the bill would pass without the Nelson amendments. Apparently they all were happier to see the bill pass with than without these amendments.

The Daily Pander said...

Not meeting the legal definition of bribery can still mean X is a political bribe. Amazingly, Anon, you blame 39 Republicans, who neither offered nor received Nelson's bribe, for Nelson's bribe. Nelson could have done exactly what you blame 39 Republicans for, too.

Anonymous said...

Why should Nelson do that? Bringing home the bacon is a big part of what gets Senators reelected? Sure, I don't approve of what Nelson did. But I am not in a position to make his deal necessary. That is why I mention the 39.