[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: DeLay in the Time of RICO (TOM DELAY SETTLED RICO SUIT AGAINST HIM) DeLay in the Time of RICO Posted: 1/26/06 Reflections on a Lawsuit A few days ago, Joshua Micah Marshall at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007477.php reminisced about the RICO suit filed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee against Mr. DeLay, some of his closest associates and various organizations operating under his effective control. Marshall is interested in how the suit was received at the time. He recalls that it was "laughed off the political stage," a stinging assessment but not far from the truth. The following, one account of the party and press reaction to the suit, is prompted by the questions Marshall asked: "[The DCCC] had the nub of what the [DeLay] operation was about. What happened to the case? And what was the reaction at the time from the established press worthies?" First: what happened to the suit? After DeLay and his co-defendants attempted but failed to obtain a quick dismissal, the case was settled, with DeLay offering a representation that organizations within his network would not raise and spend $25 million in undisclosed, improperly raised funds on the 2000 Congressional elections. In filing the suit, DCCC had made clear its intent to prevent DeLay’s use of extortionate fundraising and sham tax-exempts to establish a shadow political operation able to function outside existing rules and law. Once that purpose was fulfilled, the further prosecution of the suit was unnecessary. And the organizations in question did not figure prominently in the 2000 elections. Second: what was the political response to the suit, from press and members of the party? Much of it was the expression of horror at the purported ugliness of the suit, which was denounced as little more than a naked example of the politics of personal destruction. Some Members of Congress—Democratic Members of both the House and the Senate—called to complain to the DCCC and to Chairman Kennedy, and a number of them, questioning the legal basis for the suit, were referred to counsel. Explanations of both the goal and substance of the suit did not seem to put the troubled, reproachful questions to rest. One Democratic Member demanded a meeting, in person, and interrogated the undersigned for well over an hour, demanding to know the process by which counsel had secured authorization for the suit. Spread before him were xeroxed copies of the statutes and cases on which we had relied, apparently provided by a member of the staff who attended the meeting and glared disapprovingly throughout the inquisition. There were gratifying shows of support for the action. DCCC Chairman Kennedy and House Democratic Leader Gephardt did not waver. Senate Democratic Leader Daschle, aware of the adverse reactions, requested a briefing so that he would be prepared to answer questions from colleagues, and then, fully satisfied with what he learned, he assured the DCCC of his support. Press response, including commentariat response, was largely unfriendly. The Washington Post issued an editorial scolding. A member of the New York Times editorial board called to ask for some background questions: we were told that the Times would treat the DCCC with compassion, but that it should not expect a full embrace. The DCCC Communications Director Erik Smith reported a cold skepticism encountered throughout the media. Nothing better illustrated the "mainstream" response than an op-ed published in the Times by well-known Democratic consultant and cable talk show host Paul Begala. "Democrats Play the Vengeance Game," The New York Times (May 10, 2000) at 31. Begala administered a high-minded rebuke of the DCCC, opening his piece with the categorical conclusion that the suit was "wrong, ethically, legally and politically." For him, this was merely a replay of the insidious partisanship displayed by Republicans during the Clinton era, and he called upon "those who decried the abuse of the legal system for partisan ends" to recognize their "moral obligation" and to "condemn the legal pursuit of Mr. DeLay." He offered that he had no use for DeLay’s tactics, but that he knew them not to be criminal, which was rather beside the point in a piece about a civil suit. Begala insisted all the same that the remedy for DeLay’s conduct was properly left to a vigilant press and to the voters. The DCCC responded to these complaints by requesting meetings with editorial boards to review the reasoning behind the decision to file suit. To the credit of the news organizations contacted, the meetings were readily and quickly scheduled, and a patient and respectful hearing was provided. But it was apparent in the course of those meetings that minds would not change: at best, some of the editorial board members and reporters better understood the DCCC’s motivation, seeming to accept that it was not a drunken assault but a carefully considered legal response to a real threat to Democratic interests. In any event, the suit had become old news, and until something happened in the courts, there was unlikely to be further berating of the DCCC for its poor taste. This tale is not one of party committee visionaries dishonored in their own time. DCCC had devoted some care to an examination of DeLay’s modus operandi, but much of what it found was easily available through a review of the daily and periodical press. In these press accounts—confirmed by other sources—could be found all the elements of behavior fairly addressed, for want of feasible alternatives, by a racketeering suit. The extortionate behavior of "K Street Project" notoriety, now so furiously condemned in the call for reform; the use of various shells to move money around without disclosure for various political and other purposes; the questionable associates and associations by which Mr. DeLay and his associates effected and directed this scheme. There was more to learn—much more, we now know—but the case was settled and the "legal pursuit of Mr, Delay" lamented by Paul Begala would resume later. It is impossible to say exactly what accounted for the immediate distaste shown for the suit when filed, lasting well after it was painstakingly explained. Doubtless some of the press reaction was simple discomfort with the very sound of a "racketeering" charge brought against the House Majority Whip. Perhaps, too, the press had grown so weary of partisan name-calling that it concluded that the RICO suit was the apotheosis of a generally unhappy trend, masquerading as a lawsuit. Other perceptions and motivations played their part. DeLay was admired by some in the press: while he was tough, even a bit of a brute, he supplied a hell of a good political story. It also seemed to make a difference that he was seemingly very successful in building a forbidding Republican machine. In this light, the Democratic attack was perceived by some as little more than the reaction of the beach weakling who, having had sand kicked freely all over him, bursts into a tearful tirade. The press does make its judgments about winners and losers, and the winners sometimes get more than their fair share of the benefit of the doubt. This press reaction strongly affected some of the Democrats who claimed to be repulsed by the suit. They wished to escape being condemned as ruthless partisans; they wished to demonstrate a commitment to a political dialogue scrubbed clean of invective and to a politics waged outside the legal process. Both of these aspirations are entirely creditable, of course, but neither, from DCCC’s perspective, were usefully or realistically expressed by protesting the DeLay suit. DeLay’s political program transgressed even the fairly flexible rules of partisan competition: it was a form of machine politics built on the systematic abuse of state power and official position, among other questionable means, to build an insuperable Republican advantage. An unusual answer to that challenge seemed imperative, and the suit filed by the DCCC was meant to supply at least part of it. Reasonable minds can differ, and indeed they do: and in this instance, there may have been reasonable anxieties about the application of the RICO statute, even in a civil action, to mount the Democratic challenge to DeLay’s machine. There was also a fair amount of self-deception about what DeLay was up to and the dangers that his activities presented for progressive politics. And, of course, there were those who opportunistically seized the banner of a higher, less partisan, more civilized politics to draw attention to themselves, knowing that those who can rise above "partisan politics" may gaze at their reflection in the daily punditry, declared to be the fairest of them all. Bob Bauer
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||