Jeb and Hillary on the Road to the White House

OAKDALE, La. - June 15, 2015 - PRLog -- By Don E. Siegelman
Governor of Alabama, 1999-2003
Lt. Governor, 1995-1999
Attorney General, 1987-1991
Secretary of State, 1979-1987

First, Jeb Bush, George W and I were Governors when the Clintons were in the White House. While ‘W’ failed to impress me, Jeb was bright and humble. Second, an admission, I am a life-long Democrat and believe that we could do worse than Jeb or Hillary.

My first observation is that the amounts of cash coming into Jeb's and Hillary's campaigns will not be so important because of the media commercials they will buy, but rather because of what journalists say about who gave what to whom and why.

I'm about as far outside of the DC Beltway as one can get.

So, through prison's prism, presidential politics may be a bit diffracted, but one thing is crystal clear, we have two front runners: Hillary and Jeb. Another thing is clear; there is an obscene amount of money being handed out and hoarded.

Good news for the public: the caches of campaign cash may buy unforeseen political blowbacks and fireworks that embarrass, or more.

Since January, there have been dozens of major stories in the Post and the WSJ about the race...the race for big money, that is. (See Washington Post April 19, 2015: 'Big Money in Politics Emerges As A Rising Issue in 2016 Campaign’)

Several Republicans have enough cash to hang in to challenge Jeb. Jeb, whom I got to know and respect, reminds me so much of our friend Mitt Romney. Democrats went giddy watching Jeb's evolutionary answer to the question of whether he would, knowing what we know today, invade Iraq. Lesson: feet are best used to pad the precincts in Iowa and out of one's mouth. Republican detractors are telling Jeb to stop with the money and get out on the campaign trail. Time will tell whether those naysayers are really soothsayers.

But Republicans became buoyed by Peter Schweizer's ‘Clinton Cash’ [book], revealing that Mrs. Clinton is flush with cash in all of her, and Bill's, pockets. Yet to Rove's dismay, ‘she only has two challengers’; Senator Sanders who pulls no punches and Governor O'Malley who throws no punches.

The good news for Rove Republicans is that Hillary doesn't need a serious Democratic opponent. She has a team of distracters: Bill and Hillary. Old axiom: People don't trip over the Grand Canyon; it's the cracks in the sidewalks that bring them down.

Bill and Hillary have done for the American public what Cicero couldn't; induce interest in Latin. ‘Quid Pro Quo’ we now know means ‘Something for Something’. In campaign speak: "I'll give you a campaign donation IF you give me what I want."

Since I'm in prison on the basis of a campaign contribution I am qualified to give a primer on the subject to the 2016 candidates.

The good news for candidates is that the U.S. Supreme Court told us in the McCormick case in 1991, that because a campaign contribution puts the First Amendment into play, it takes an ‘explicit’ agreement, where the terms of the agreement are ‘asserted’, before one crosses the line from politics to crime.

The bad news is that in run-of-the mill bribery situations, where personal gain is involved, the courts give juries more leeway to convict, if the jury can ‘infer’ or ‘imply’ an agreement.

And there's more bad news that will give candidates heartburn. I am in prison because of a campaign contribution to The Alabama Education Foundation. The contribution wasn't even to my reelection campaign. There was no testimony of a quid pro quo, much less an ‘express’ one, and no allegation of personal gain. No personal benefit, not a single penny. There was no self enrichment scheme at all.

While my case may be an anomaly in American Jurisprudence, it is nonetheless legal precedent. As George Will points out, this ruling puts "dangerous discretion" in the hands of prosecutors:

"...Americans engage in politics at their peril because prosecutors have dangerous discretion to criminalize politics...if bribery can be discerned in a somehow 'implicit' connection between a contribution and an official action, prosecutorial discretion will be vast. And there will be the political temptation to ascribe unspoken but criminal mental states to elected officials." (See George Will, ‘Is it Bribery or Just Politics?’ WP 2/10/12)


For donors to super PACs I have more Latin to impart: ‘res ipsa loquitor’, ‘the thing speaks for itself’, which means you, too, are screwed. So ‘stultiloquium’, meaning ‘it's foolish to speak’, hire a lawyer. The donor in my case, a Fortune 500 CEO, never wanted the non-paying appointment I gave him, and was still sentenced to five years.

"Quid Pro Quo" has taken a front seat in the Presidential arena primarily because of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case which allows limitless contributions to gush into political super PAC slush.

If a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, the danger for both donors and candidates is apparent. It doesn't take much for an ambitious prosecutor, tempted by politics, to indict where the appearance is that money was given and something benefitted the donor later down the road.

Problems can arise from campaign contributions, as it has with Senator Menendez or with the Clintons' mind-blowing amounts of money from foreign entities to the Clinton Foundation both giving rise to questions of Quid's and Quo's. (See: Wall Street Journal, 4/15/15, 'The Menendez Indictment' and 4/23/15, 'Quid Pro Clinton')

Candidates should ask themselves, "Are donors going to want something?”  Perhaps an innocent appointment. Maybe being Governor of Samoa?  An ambassadorship? Governmental action of some kind?

Super PAC donors may find their donations, intended to fuel the campaign, are now fodder for prosecutors. (See Washington Post 3/12/15: 'Why Super PACs Have Moved From Sideshow to Center Stage for Presidential Hopefuls')

While Hillary calls for a constitutional amendment, Jeb asks donors to limit gifts to $1,000,000. Governor Huckabee has a better idea. The former Governor says “lift the ban on campaign contributions to ‘yank back control from super PACs’ and require instant disclosure by candidates.”

"The candidate would have to go out and defend whether he was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the $100 million donor...". (See Washington Post April 19, 2015: 'Big Money in Politics Emerges As A Rising Issue in 2016 Campaign')

The impression that large donors steer our democracy feeds the belief that ‘my vote doesn't count’, eroding faith and trust in public officials. As Governor Huckabee points out, disclosure will give voters the information they need to cast an informed ballot.

Ergo, with disclosure, voters will feel more empowered knowing WHY they need to hammer who on Election Day. Now that will enliven our democracy!

Don E. Siegelman

Follow me on Twitter: @DonSiegelman (https://twitter.com/DonSiegelman) and FB: @ Free Don Siegelman (https://www.facebook.com/FreeDonSiegelman)