Judge bars Texas district attorney from using money from an asset forfeiture fund to pay for her defense against accusations that she helped illegally seized money from motorists, which then went to said asset forfeiture fund.
I’d love it if this were true, but it strikes me as way too optimistic, and of giving the U.S. government way more credit than it deserves.
Julian Sanchez pokes at the silly outrage over the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. More from my boss-man Matt Welch here.
Speaking of which, it’s time to do away with caps on individual campaign contributions, too. When only 30 percent of the public has a favorable view of Congress, but 95 percent of incumbents keep getting reelected, the game’s been rigged.
Oscar Goodman sounds like my kind of politician.
TSA agents have pretty terrible senses of humor. Especially when they’re trying to be funny.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, January 24th, 2010 at 10:54 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Drug War.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
How Rare, Sweet & Savory is poetic justice at the expense of an american Goverment judicial official. The DA claims that she has done nothing wrong and therefore should not be liable. Hhhmmmm… seems to me that all the people the police department shook down under her watch were thinking the exact same thing;)
“When only 30 percent of the public has a favorable view of Congress, but 95 percent of incumbents keep getting reelected, the game’s been rigged.”
In what way would unlimited donations change that? Incumbents usually have at least two years to solicit donations, and an obviously better marketing pitch to big donations, than challengers. Unlimited money wouldn’t change that dynamic. It’s a free speech issue, and I’m sympathetic, but not a magic wand to unseat incumbents. Also, that number would probably change quite dramatically if you asked people about their representative, especially if they’ve served multiple terms. I really like Rush Holt, but not a particularly big fan of the general congress.
And I love how the TSA mentions ‘privacy law’ like thirty times. WTF is that?
“I’d love to tell you which of our agents is threatening national security and whether or not we decided to fire or promote him but Puff the Magic Dragon Law prevents me. I’m so sorry.”
The Tenaha story actually made me smile. Until these lowlife scum are held accountable, nothing can ever change.
GOD, I wish I could have been the one to fire him. In fact, I think that is the one job where I’d wake up hours early and *dance* to work: firing TSA employees. Is there such job? Dare I dream?
I’ve reorganized my epic takedown of the CRA, and added a table of contents at the front if you want to skip right to the data on large institutions vs. small ones. If I do say so myself, I’ve never seen that argument against the “look at these small lending programs” defense of the CRA given by the left. Libs used the CRA to take trillions from the large banks, then investigated small ones to evaluate the program.
The Community Reinvestment Act, Evaluated
While I don’t necessarily disagree about campaign contributions I think the idea that limits on money is what is keeping Congressional elections uncompetitive is naively simplistic. If you want to specify a particular policy cause I think heavily gerrymandered districts are far more to blame. The amount of money being tossed around by citizens or organizations doesn’t matter nearly as much when most legislators have engineered safe seats for themselves.
Eh. I think Kevin Drum kinda summed up my feelings about it: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/01/money-politics
That said, I’m not sure what you all are crowing about. It’s not as though a victory for corporate influence in our political system is a victory for individual liberty.
Something tells me these DAs don’t accept these arguments from the people they prosecute. Why should we accept such things from them?
[PS: The taxpayers should pay for her defence -- she's being sued in her official capacity -- but using the asset forfeiture fund itself makes no sense]
When only 30 percent of the public has a favorable view of Congress, but 95 percent of incumbents keep getting reelected, the game’s been rigged.
Yeah but even poor people today have TVs and telephones so everything is peachy, right?
Unlimited donations from private citizens? George Soros will be thrilled.
Dunno about you, but my heart bleeds for her.
Re Citizens United:
What about corporations that are partly owned by foreign interests? Is it simply enough that the company be incorporated in the US or traded in the US?
Bitch deserves to be left “high and dry”, preferably from a hemp rope tied to a lamp post. Financially ruined is a poor second choice.
Wether or not Corporations should have free speech rights is one question, but the idea they are protected by the constitution is ludicrous.
“When only 30 percent of the public has a favorable view of Congress, but 95 percent of incumbents keep getting reelected, the game’s been rigged.”
There is a problem, but not the one you think. Elected officials provide the public with (give or take) the government they want. However, the public is incapable of reconciling that (1) they are getting what they want with (2) what they’re getting isn’t very good. As a defense measure, the public convinces itself that the process is rigged by special interests, corporate money, backroom dealing, Jews… whatever it is today.
Because this is a way for the public to absolve itself of moral and intellectual responsibility for its choices, it is a very dangerous thing.
If you assume that corporations are equivalent to individuals, the case is rather open & shut: no duh they can’t be silenced.
But if you ask why corporate status, itself a grant of privilege by government, exists in the first place…
“The TSA views this employee’s behavior to be highly inappropriate and unprofessional,” she wrote. “We can assure travelers this employee has been disciplined by TSA management at Philadelphia International Airport, and he has expressed remorse for his actions.”
so… after they chuckled about the ‘joke’, they told him not to do ‘that one’ again. we’ve repeatedly seen minor offenses like this prosecuted as a federal crime when an individual makes a ‘joke’.
A couple of comments on the dirty DA:
1. It’s ironic that the purpose of asset forfeiture is that criminals don’t get to use their ill-gotten gains for their own good. I have no problem with that. However, the irony here is that means that Tenaha should have their ill-gotten gains taken from them – this shouldn’t even be problem.
2. In most cases I believe that rogue DAs, police officers, and judges *should* have to pay for their own defense and *should* be liable individually. In this case, though, I think Tehana should share responsibility. It’s not just this DA that was corrupt; in fact the entire criminal justice system there from the police to the DA’s office to the courts were in on this little scam, and as such the people there *should* pay. She wasn’t a rogue acting outside her official capacity. To the contrary, she was part of a criminal organization acting in place of their government, apparently with the sanction of the people living there. The fact that their Baptist “church” had accepted $10,000 of the filthy lucre tells me that this community was aware of what was going on and, at best, complicit.
The AUDACITY of a CRIMINAL who wants to use the proceeds of said CRIME to pay for said CRIMINALS legal defense !
I don’t like the fact that corporations and unions can contribute to political campaigns. Neither entity can vote. Why the hell should they be affecting the outcomes of elections? Their ability to influence via money is completely disproportionate to that of most of the people who are actually supposed to be represented by the politician in question. American politics might be just a bit less of a cesspool if corporations and unions were left out of it. By allowing their contributions, it’s simply an admission that buying votes from politicians is a-ok.
I can’t help but wonder how much screaming there’s going to be when Citgo starts running ads for or against politicians. Nobody has a problem with Hugo Chavez getting into US electoral politics, right?
Heck, does the ruling even have any limitations on where corporations are established? I’m pretty sure non-citizens in the US have First Amendment rights as well, because the Amendment doesn’t really cover the right – it covers the creation of laws that abridge rights. So, there’s no problem with any non-US corporation getting into the party, right?
My problem with the corporate person-hood argument is that it’s not fully enforced…i.e. a corporation is a “person” in some instances, but not all. 1st Amendment rights? Person. 5th Amendment rights? Person. Charging the corporation with murder if they knowingly put in salmonella infected peanuts into the food supply? Sorry, not a person. You’ll have to sue. Charging the corporation with breaking and entering when they break into your house and lock you out of it, because, even after you informed them that you owned your house free and clear, they made a mistake as to whether they even had a mortgage with you, and possessed the house? Sorry, not a person. Can’t be done.
If a corporation is a person, that comes with responsibilities, as well as rights. Our current system gives them all the rights with none of the responsibilities. If I knowingly dumped a substance into the food supply that killed lots of people, I’d be (rightly) charged with murder, and possibly domestic terrorism. A corporation does it? Nothing. Lawsuits. Fines (maybe).
Hey- if corporations are persons, why can’t they vote?