Blagojevich case shows corrupting influence of campaign contributions on legislation Commentary
Blagojevich case shows corrupting influence of campaign contributions on legislation
Edited by:

Melanie Sloan [Executive Director, CREW]: "Federal prosecutors face some difficult hurdles in making a criminal case against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. The first half of the criminal complaint against the governor involves allegations of a "pay to play" system. Forty of the seventy-six pages in the complaint detail the governor's efforts to solicit and obtain campaign contributions in exchange for official acts. The question, given that our campaign finance system allows politicians to solicit campaign contributions from those with business before them, is how did Governor Blagojevich cross the line from legal political horse trading into honest services fraud?

Although accepting a contribution to a political campaign can constitute a bribe if a quid pro quo can be demonstrated, Justice Department policy generally has been to prosecute politicians who are personally enriched. Former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham and newly defeated Congressman William Jefferson, for example, were charged with honest services fraud after personally receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits. If the Justice Department indicts Governor Blagojevich for trading campaign contributions for official acts, how will this impact members of Congress, who frequently accept contributions from those who have benefitted from legislative actions. Congressmen John Murtha (D-PA) and Jerry Lewis (R-CA) are two members who routinely insert earmarks into legislation for those who donate to their campaigns. Are their indictments far behind?

Governor Blagojevich's conduct clearly is despicable, but is it worse than what goes on in our nation's capitol everyday? Does anyone really believe that campaign contributions bear no relation to legislation? If so, why do so many lobbyists contribute heavily to the campaigns of those members of Congress who sit on the committees with jurisdiction over their issues? Perhaps the distinction rests on the fact that Governor Blagojevich was so foolish as to explicitly demand contributions in return for official actions, whereas most politicians are smart enough to leave such matters unstated. That means the only real difference is the existence of incontrovertible wiretap evidence providing proof positive that the governor traded money for actions."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.