Why Obama Should Pardon Don Siegelman

[KamaAina]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/obama-pardon-don-siegelman

Since the midterm elections, President Barack Obama has been acting as if he feels liberated from parochial political concerns. After taking action on immigration, Cuba, and climate change, he should take on another risky, if less well-known, challenge by commuting the prison sentence of Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama....

Throughout Siegelman’s legal ordeal, the Supreme Court has been in the process of deregulating American politics, most notably in the 2010 Citizens United decision. In that case, the Justices found that money is speech—that contributing to a political campaign amounts to a protected activity under the First Amendment. As the appeals court in Siegelman’s case noted, the charges in his case “impact the First Amendment’s core values—protection of free political speech and the right to support issues of great public importance. It would be a particularly dangerous legal error from a civic point of view to instruct a jury that they may convict a defendant for his exercise of either of these constitutionally protected activities.”

It seems clear that Siegelman was conducting the seedy, but routine, business of contemporary American politics. Scrushy contributed because he wanted something in return, which is why many, if not most, people contribute to political campaigns. (George Will made this point in a column in defense of Siegelman.) Why do “bundlers” become Ambassadors in congenial countries? Why do local contractors support mayoral candidates? Why do real-estate developers give to prospective (and incumbent) governors? Because they want something. Siegelman was convicted because the quid pro quo was too “explicit”—but, beyond the conversation about what Scrushy might want, there was no clear evidence that it was. Thanks to the courts, the line between illegal bribery by campaign contribution and the ordinary business of politics has all but disappeared. Throwing a man in prison for activity at the murky barrier between the two is simply unjust.

Siegelman should be freed, too, because there was a distasteful overlay of politics to his prosecution. According to an affidavit filed by a Republican lawyer in Alabama, senior state Republicans, in the aftermath of the 2002 election, said that Karl Rove, then a top White House aide to President Bush, had promised them a Justice Department investigation of Siegelman—an investigation that then took place. The matter of White House interference in the case is unproved, but Rove certainly proved, later in the Bush Administration, that he was willing to manipulate United States Attorneys for the political advantage of the Republican Party. Given the ubiquity of quid-pro-quo politics in Alabama (and most other states), the case against Siegelman appears selective indeed.

[Maedhros]

1. Siegelman should have been pardoned the day after Obama's first inauguration. [n/t]