Blagojevich and Legal Bribery

[groovedaddy]

IN May 1980, during the height of the movement to add an Equal Rights Amendment for women to the Constitution, an activist named Wanda Brandstetter delivered a note to Nord Swanstrom, an Illinois state representative. “Mr. Swanstrom,” it said, “the offer to help in your election and $1,000 for your campaign for pro-E.R.A. vote.” Things did not go as Ms. Brandstetter hoped. The measure was never ratified by the Legislature, while her offer of $1,000 lead directly to her conviction for bribery in the Illinois courts.

Since Ms. Brandstetter’s case, it has been clear in Illinois (and eventually in the federal courts too) that, notwithstanding the First Amendment protections the Supreme Court has applied to political contributions, prosecutions for bribery and extortion may be brought when a donation is tied directly to a specific act by an elected official.

So, people are right to wonder how the jury in the trial of Rod Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois, could possibly be unable to come up with a verdict on any bribery-related charges, finding Mr. Blagojevich guilty only of lying to federal agents when he characterized himself in 2005 as uninvolved in political fundraising.

After all, government wiretaps revealed Mr. Blagojevich threatening not to sign legislation beneficial to the harness racing industry unless he received a $100,000 campaign donation from one race track executive. He even threatened to hold up an increase in state Medicaid reimbursements for pediatric cases until the chief executive of Illinois’s leading children’s hospital contributed $50,000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/opinion/18turow.html?th&emc=th

[aquart]

1. The jury was hung on one. One woman who wouldn't vote to convict.

That's why the retrial.

[Vincardog]

2. Is anyone looking into her finances?

[happyslug]

3. A lot of people reduce things to Dollar and Cents,

And if a Juror finds that is all the Defendant was doing, at what point is it illegal? The Juror could have viewed all of the Governor's statements as to money as just his way of deciding who is the best qualified. Who you appoint to what position can have an affect on your own re-election AND people can put one's own election in money terms. I do not agree with that way of looking at things, but I understand it and if a Juror has that outlook at life, what is legal under this statute? What is illegal? Is what the Governor did (not what he said, but what he did) illegal?