Corruption trial prosecutor wrong: Power is for sale to highest bidder

By David McElroy · March 1, 2012

“These defendants are guilty,” federal prosecutor Kendall Day told jurors in Montgomery, Ala., Wednesday morning. “It’s time for you to tell these defendants that the government in Alabama is not for sale.”

Federal prosecutors have been on a righteous crusade in Alabama for the last year or so. They arrested about a dozen people who were either politicians or involved in the gambling industry in the state and charged them with bribery. It was all about good government and keeping crooks out of the public’s business, they said. Unfortunately, the story is a lot more complicated than prosecutors want us to believe.

What’s the difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe? What’s the difference between giving someone money to get elected in exchange for supporting a certain position — which is illegal — and delivering a block of votes to a candidate in exchange for supporting a certain position — which is legal? If a union leader says, “If you support this law that we want, my 10,000 members will vote for you,” why is that legal — if it’s illegal to say, “If you support this law that we want, I will give your campaign a million dollars to help you get elected”?

The guy in the picture above is Milton McGregor. He’s been the leading figure in the gambling industry in Alabama for decades. He’s owned greyhound racing tracks and huge bingo operations. Because most gambling is illegal in Alabama — for reasons that have never been clear to me — he has had to fight hard for the right to be left alone by the government to run his businesses.

I don’t mean to paint him as a saint or a do-gooder. He’s not. He’s a hard-nosed businessman who’s willing to cut corners and bend the rules to get what he wants. He’s been known to make illegal cash contributions to candidates, but that’s never been legally proven. Two years ago, the state government was trying hard to shut down his bingo operations. The governor at the time was making it a big deal. He had a task force that he was using to raid many of the operations and claim they were illegal. (For complicated reasons that I won’t bore you with, the bingo operations were operating in a gray area of the law. The governor was interpreting the law one way. The operators interpreted it another way.)

Because their businesses were threatened, McGregor and other gambling industry types started spreading campaign contributions around to key legislators. They were trying to get the Legislature to pass a measure that would have allowed a statewide vote to definitively legalize the bingo operations. So they spent a lot of time, money and lobbying effort to woo legislators — to get them to support the statewide vote.

Federal prosecutors got the co-operation of anti-gambling legislators and got extensive recordings of meetings and phone calls between legislators and gambling industry representatives. There was plenty of discussion of money for campaigns, but in all of those recordings, there’s never one case in which a legislator agreed to vote a certain way in exchange for the money. Still, the feds arrested a dozen political and industry leaders anyway.

In the first trial last year, some of the defendants were found not guilty and some of the remaining ones were found not guilty on some of the charges. It was a disaster for the prosecution, but the government decided to go ahead and re-try the remaining charges.

The trial hasn’t gone well for the government, because prosecutors weren’t able to produce a single direct link between the money and votes. In some cases, the legislators who received the money even voted against the gambling industry on certain votes.

The prosecutor said that the jury should send the message that government is not for sale, but it clearly is. If government weren’t for sale, interest groups wouldn’t spend untold millions (billions?) of dollars each year buying influence with legislators. Companies who are scared of being regulated out of existence — such as the state gambling industry here — wouldn’t spend their money trying to get laws passed to protect themselves. Various special interests wouldn’t bother making millions and millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

If people make campaign contributions, isn’t it because they want people elected who will advance their interests? Why is that not bribery if it’s bribery for the gambling industry to try to elect or re-elect people favorable to its positions?

As long as you have a system that gives a coercive state the power to rule over others — businesses, industries, social groups, etc. — you’re going to have a situation in which the group which can bid the highest will win. Those bids will be a combination of campaign contributions and votes, but that doesn’t really matter, because if you have the money, you can translate that into votes.

Everything I know about the people who operate the gambling industry tells me that it’s a sleazy business and that it’s run by sleazy people. But if people want to voluntarily gamble their money away, it’s not anybody else’s business to stop them. It’s a voluntary arrangement. (It’s a tax on people who can’t do math.) So when government tries to criminalize private business arrangements, it creates criminals when individuals fight back for their right to conduct their own affairs without government interference.

I don’t want to cast McGregor and others of the gambling industry here as libertarian heroes. They’re not. They’re just self-interested businessmen pursuing ways to make more money. When you try to criminalize actions which should be perfectly personal and legal, you’re going to create criminals. That’s what the government is trying to do.

What’s more, they can’t even show that there was anything illegal done here. The gambling interests tried to influence legislation. So what? The same thing is done by churches, civil rights groups, business interests, utilities, labor unions and on and on and on.

Government is for sale anywhere a coercive government has power. If these guys are convicted, then everybody who tries to influence any legislation is just as guilty.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts