Tom Delay to get new judge in campaign finance trial

[Cylinder]

From the Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory2/3430374)

A state district judge who had contributed to Democratic organizations was removed today from the conspiracy and money laundering trial of Republican U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay.

Retired state District Judge C.W. Duncan Jr. made no comment when he granted DeLay's motion to remove Judge Bob Perkins from the case.

Throughout the proceedings, DeLay sat in the front row behind defense attorneys with his wife and aides. He often smiled, and he occasionally chuckled when Democrats said negative things about him in their testimony. He gave no comment as he left the courthouse.

DeLay's attorneys had contended the Democratic judge would be biased against the former House majority leader in the criminal case stemming from the use of corporate campaign donations in 2002 Texas House races.

Neither DeLay nor Perkins testified in today's hearing.

"This is the wrong case for Judge Perkins to judge because of his perfectly permissible activity as a Democrat and as a partisan and as a supporter of Democratic causes," DeLay's attorney Dick DeGuerin said after the four-hour hearing.

District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who heads the criminal investigation into DeLay's fund-raising activities, watched in the courtroom while his deputies questioned witnesses. He got up at the end of the hearing and chided DeLay's attorneys for repeatedly calling it a "political case."

[Cleon]

Because a good Republican judge would be more objective and fair, I'm sure.

[Mark]

From the Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory2/3430374)

Interesting given that the judge who made the decision is also a Republican and Democrat contributor.

[Mephisto]

Well, you get what you pay for . . .

[SezMe]

How can a "retired" judge be making a decision?

Will Delay also seek removal of all judges who made contributions to the Elephants?

[Luke T.]

It doesn't say in the OP link that one of the "Democratic organizations" this judge contributed to was Moveon.org (http://cdn.moveonpac.org/content/pdfs/FristDelay_FINAL_NYTIMES.pdf). Take a look at the NYT ad and know that the judge helped pay for it with his contributions. Can you honestly say he would be unbiased?

Would it be so difficult to find a judge who has not contributed money to such an organization?

Ironically, the little clip-out coupon to contribute to MoveOn at the bottom of that ad says, "YES! I WANT TO HELP. Your contribution will be used to support MoveOn PAC's campaign to protect the independence of our courts and other critical efforts through more advertising and other means."

Other means? Hmmmm.

[a_unique_person]

One the inherent problems of electing judges. There should be that clear division between the elected officers, and the judiciary, according to the 'seperation of powers'. Of course appointing judges also has it's own problems.

[Luke T.]

List of organizations (http://www.newsmeat.com/judiciary_political_donations/Bob_Perkins.php) Judge Bob Perkins has contributed to. Note the date he contributed to MoveOn.

[Cleon]

It doesn't say in the OP link that one of the "Democratic organizations" this judge contributed to was Moveon.org (http://cdn.moveonpac.org/content/pdfs/FristDelay_FINAL_NYTIMES.pdf). Take a look at the NYT ad and know that the judge helped pay for it with his contributions. Can you honestly say he would be unbiased?

Would it be so difficult to find a judge who has not contributed money to such an organization?

I'm unaware of any evidence connecting the judge with that particular ad, Luke. Care to share?

In fact, according to the judge, he contributed to MoveOn primarily to help John Kerry. Delay didn't enter into it. (link (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9773073/))

What Delay is trying to do is despicable, frankly. He's trying to make this into a political trial, where he's being persecuted for his politics rather than prosecuted for his conduct. He's already accused the prosecutor of being a Democratic shill, now he's gone after the judge.

This is Republican "personal responsibility for your actions" at its best.

[Luke T.]

I'm unaware of any evidence connecting the judge with that particular ad, Luke. Care to share?

In fact, according to the judge, he contributed to MoveOn primarily to help John Kerry. Delay didn't enter into it. (link (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9773073/))

If you contribute to PETA, and PETA destroys research laboratories, can you say your money didn't go toward that effort? "Oh, my money was given with the intent of helping puppies find homes!"


What Delay is trying to do is despicable, frankly. He's trying to make this into a political trial, where he's being persecuted for his politics rather than prosecuted for his conduct. He's already accused the prosecutor of being a Democratic shill, now he's gone after the judge.

This is Republican "personal responsibility for your actions" at its best.

I see. Let's remember these comments when the bias of Alito is raised later this year.

Seriously. Is it so hard to find a judge who has not contributed to an extremist group?

[a_unique_person]

Seriously. Is it so hard to find a judge who has not contributed to an extremist group?

Perhaps that, in itself, is the issue.

[Just thinking]

I wonder how some would react if they were picked up for DWI and failed the Police Officer's Sobriety Test (walking a straight line, etc.) due to nervousness but knew they were well within the legal limit. Then they get to court and come upon a judge that is a strong supporter (and continuing contributor) of MADD. Do they really think they would get a fair trial or would they ask for a different judge?

[Mephisto]

This is Republican "personal responsibility for your actions" at its best.

Yeah, this is how they bring "integrity" back to the White House.

[Luke T.]

In fact, according to the judge, he contributed to MoveOn primarily to help John Kerry. Delay didn't enter into it. (link (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9773073/))

If you look at this link (http://www.newsmeat.com/judiciary_political_donations/Bob_Perkins.php) again, you can see he did contribute to Kerry directly, four times, for a total contribution of $1275. And he contributed $600 to the DNC. So saying he contributed to MoveOn to help Kerry just doesn't ring true.

[Cleon]

If you look at this link (http://www.newsmeat.com/judiciary_political_donations/Bob_Perkins.php) again, you can see he did contribute to Kerry directly, four times, for a total contribution of $1275. And he contributed $600 to the DNC. So saying he contributed to MoveOn to help Kerry just doesn't ring true.

Er, why not? How does one rule out the other?

The last contribution he made to Moveon was before the election. If helping Kerry wasn't the primary reason, he would've kept contributing after the election, no?

I notice you still haven't provided any evidence connecting the judge with the ad you mentioned. That wouldn't be poisoning the well, would it?

[Luke T.]

Er, why not? How does one rule out the other?

The last contribution he made to Moveon was before the election. If helping Kerry wasn't the primary reason, he would've kept contributing after the election, no?

I notice you still haven't provided any evidence connecting the judge with the ad you mentioned. That wouldn't be poisoning the well, would it?

Why contribute to MoveOn to help Kerry when you can contribute directly to Kerry? Does that sound efficient? I think it is obvious the judge likes MoveOn's campaign tactics.

Would you buy it if it turns out Alito contributed to Operation Rescue or somesuch to "help get Bush elected"?

ETA: I'm not saying the judge's intention wasn't to help Kerry by contributing to MoveOn. I am saying he must agree with their tactics to help Kerry and the Democratic Party. And part of those tactics are the NYT ad I linked.

[hgc]

Why contribute to MoveOn to help Kerry when you can contribute directly to Kerry? Does that sound efficient? I think it is obvious the judge likes MoveOn's campaign tactics.

Would you buy it if it turns out Alito contributed to Operation Rescue or somesuch to "help get Bush elected"?

ETA: I'm not saying the judge's intention wasn't to help Kerry by contributing to MoveOn. I am saying he must agree with their tactics to help Kerry and the Democratic Party. And part of those tactics are the NYT ad I linked.How do you draw a comparison between MoveOn and Operation Rescue? On what standards of measure?

[Cleon]

Why contribute to MoveOn to help Kerry when you can contribute directly to Kerry? Does that sound efficient? I think it is obvious the judge likes MoveOn's campaign tactics.

Well, you think whatever you like; however, I'd like to see some actual evidence that this is the case. I could just as easily suppose that if the judge liked MoveOn's tactics, he'd contribute to them after the 2004 election as well.


Would you buy it if it turns out Alito contributed to Operation Rescue or somesuch to "help get Bush elected"?


What do you mean "buy it?" I'd hardly be surprised, if that's what you mean.

Delay's trying to turn this into a political circus rather than a trial of his actions--frankly, I'm disappointed that you're buying into it.


ETA: I'm not saying the judge's intention wasn't to help Kerry by contributing to MoveOn. I am saying he must agree with their tactics to help Kerry and the Democratic Party. And part of those tactics are the NYT ad I linked.

Yet there remains NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER connecting the judge with said ad, which YOU USED AS EVIDENCE that the judge would be biased against Delay.

[NoZed Avenger]

A few tangental points:

(1) Retired judges are commonly used, even for trials.

(2) The recusal judge (Judge Duncan) made a ruling that the initially assigned judge should not hear the case. I don't know what evidence was presented to him, but it sufficed for the Court. One consideration is not just actual bias, but the appearance of bias in a given case. I do not know if that was a factor here, or not.

(3) The second judge made a decision -- probably without consulting any internet forums. Is everyone arguing that no bias was shown with Judge Perkins assuming that Judge Duncan is biased? On what evidence?

[Cylinder]

Judge Perkins has every right to donate to whatever cause he sees fit. However, as a judge, he is required to disclose these links and recuse himself from those cases where even the appearance of conflict with otherwise legal, ethical and permissible activities may exist. From my understanding, the test is if a reasonable person would question the impartiality of the sitting judge.

Since MoveOn has used these specific allegations against DeLay and TRMPAC in fund raising and advertising, it is reasonable in my objective opinion to view a political donation as an endorsement of an organization's stated goals.

As far as the accusation against DeLay for politicizing this trial, I will let Ronnie Earle's words (http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/11/2delay.html) speak for itself:

"This is not a political case," argued Earle, a Democrat. "This is a criminal case." [snip] Earle argued that removing judges under these circumstances could lead to a country split "into Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds."

[jj]

These litmus tests are "interesting". Someone contributes to "MoveOn" and we hear that we can't trust them ever again.

You know, I think think these litmus tests have gone way too far.

[jj]

Since MoveOn has used these specific allegations against DeLay and TRMPAC in fund raising and advertising, it is reasonable in my objective opinion to view a political donation as an endorsement of an organization's stated goals.


Now, really!

Did you ever contribute to the RNC? If you did, then I don't think you have any right commenting on a Democrapic prosector.

Oh, wait, that's just as wrong as what you said!

[TragicMonkey]

These litmus tests are "interesting". Someone contributes to "MoveOn" and we hear that we can't trust them ever again.

You know, I think think these litmus tests have gone way too far.

Yeah, funny when the judge is made out to be more suspect than the defendant. In a corruption trial.

[Luke T.]

Well, you think whatever you like; however, I'd like to see some actual evidence that this is the case. I could just as easily suppose that if the judge liked MoveOn's tactics, he'd contribute to them after the 2004 election as well.

I'd say contributing money to an organization is about as solid a piece of evidence that someone supports them as it gets. What more do you want?

If his intention was to support Kerry in getting elected, then he could contribute to Kerry and leave it at that. If his intention was to get Kerry elected by way of extremist tactics, he could contribute to an extremist organization, which is what he did. While it might or might not have been the judges intent for the money to be used to elect Kerry, he clearly knew that MoveOn was not about electing Kerry. In fact, Moore came out and said Kerry sucked and was a poor choice for President, but people should vote for him since Bush was worse. Hardly an effective vote-getting speech.

MoveOn was about unseating Bush and DeLay and Frist and just about every Republican, not about electing Kerry.

Look at their ads. They are hate ads aimed at Republicans, not support ads for Democratic candidates.

And if a primary goal of an organization is to unseat someone, NOT GET SOMEONE ELECTED, and then that someone who they are trying to unseat is indicted, then it is again obvious you don't want a judge who supported the organization seeking to unseat that person to sit on that person's trial. It is about as big a conflict of interest as it gets.

ETA: Once the election was over, the time to contribute money to the organization seeking to unseat Republicans is past.

Delay's trying to turn this into a political circus rather than a trial of his actions--frankly, I'm disappointed that you're buying into it.

DeLay is simply asking for someone who clearly supports an extremist organization which has attacked him personally to be recused.

Yet there remains NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER connecting the judge with said ad, which YOU USED AS EVIDENCE that the judge would be biased against Delay.

If you can't see that someone contributing money to an organization which ran that ad during the time frame the money was contributed as evidence, then you are being incredibly disengenous.

[Tricky]

I would be interested in seeing a list of what groups DeLay would find to be objectionable as donation recipients. Do you think there would be any Republican PACs on the list? Would Operation Rescue be on there?

[Luke T.]

Was there a single MoveOn ad in support of Kerry or any other candidate? I'm curious.

[Cylinder]

These litmus tests are "interesting". Someone contributes to "MoveOn" and we hear that we can't trust them ever again.

You know, I think think these litmus tests have gone way too far.

As I stated in my previous post, Judge Perkin's integrity is not in question. What is in question is the integrity of the process. In my opinion, giving money to the Kerry campaign or the DNC in general fails to meet the standard for recusal. However, his donations to a group that uses the specific case in front of him in financial appeals does cross that line.

As Tom DeLay's attorney made clear, the motion should not cast doubt on Judge Perkins in any way. His contribution was legal, ethical and honorable from an objective standpoint. It also happens - like any tie a judge may forge - to exclude him from this particular case.

It's not necessarily a lose for the prosecution. If DeLay is convicted, this decision removes a very strong issue on appeal. If Perkins was indeed unbiased and the next judge is the same, then nothing has changed.

[Luke T.]

I would be interested in seeing a list of what groups DeLay would find to be objectionable as donation recipients. Do you think there would be any Republican PACs on the list? Would Operation Rescue be on there?

The prosecutor is free to ask any judge who has contributed to such organizations to recuse himself.

[Cylinder]

Now, really!

Did you ever contribute to the RNC? If you did, then I don't think you have any right commenting on a Democrapic prosector.

Oh, wait, that's just as wrong as what you said!

I think you're confusing my right to free speech under the First Amendment with the judicial requirement to avoid the appearance of bias.

[Manny]

Yeah, funny when the judge is made out to be more suspect than the defendant. In a corruption trial.Not to put too fine a point on it, but yes. See, defendants are presumed innocent by the system. The system puts up all kinds of barriers and checks to try to maintain that presumption in the face of the overwhelming power and resources of the State which is prosecuting him. One of them is that the reality of impropriety by a judge is not sufficient -- the appearance of impropriety is important here.

The judge did the right thing by asking another judge to make the call, and the other judge did the right thing by granting the motion for reassignment.

This is also a good thing for the prosecution, even if the prosecutor won't admit it. Imagine a conviction here. Now imagine a conviction from a judge who contributed to moveon.org. Sheesh, the whining that's avoided by this simple change makes it worth it, let alone removing a possible grounds for appeal.

[Luke T.]

All I can find that MoveOn ran are anti-Bush ads for the 2004 campaign. No "Vote Kerry" ads.

Source Watch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._presidential_election%2C_2004 :_Campaign_Ads)

Organization: Spots; Spent
MoveOn.org (anti-Bush): 3,651; $3,184,203

3,651 spots. All of them anti-Bush. No "Vote Kerry" ad.

C-Span (http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/campads.asp)

MoveOn.Org
Anti-Bush 1
Anti-Bush 2
Anti-Bush 3
Anti-Bush 4

You can watch those ads by clicking on them. Nothing about Kerry. DeLay is mentioned in the second one in connection with Enron.

So during the timeframe that the judge contributed money, we have at least one major print ad and one television ad which directly attack DeLay.

[Cylinder]

I would be interested in seeing a list of what groups DeLay would find to be objectionable as donation recipients. Do you think there would be any Republican PACs on the list? Would Operation Rescue be on there?

In our system, DeLay's attorneys are advocates. As such, they are supposed to argue those issues that favor their client.

[Luke T.]

Moore denies he hurt Kerry’s campaign (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6665034/)

In the final analysis, Moore said, Democratic presidential nominee Kerry was “not the best candidate.” President Bush “had a more compelling story to tell and the Democrats didn’t, and that has to change.”

[Luke T.]

I’ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark: Good-Bye Mr. Bush
by Michael Moore

Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0116-12.htm

[SezMe]

Luke, I agree that a donation to MoveOn does link the judge with that ad in an implicit manner, but I don't agree with your characterization of MoveOn as an "extremeist" organization. On the spectrum from simple advocacy to stridency to extremeist, where do you draw the line that delineates an organization (either right or left) as extremist?

Oh, and while I's asking, I guess I should check my assumption: When you use the word "extremist" can I assume that you mean that in a perjorative manner?

Thanks

[Cylinder]

One of them is that the reality of impropriety by a judge is not sufficient -- the appearance of impropriety is important here.

Sort of. The reality of bias is not the test. It's whether or not the link could appear improper to a reasonable person. As I stated before, since MoveOn has targeted Tom DeLay (which is ethical in a general sense) in its ads, Judge Perkins made donations to MoveOn (which is ethical) a reasonable person can view Perkins as endorsing these ads. If the judge was a TRMPAC contributor, I would see it in the same manner.

The real question is that would a reasonable person expect a MoveOn contributor to have a bias against Tom DeLay. The other question I would argue is that - as been asserted by myself and others in this thread - would a reasonable person interpret a political donation as an endorsement of their agenda? I don't think political advocacy meets this test, but donations to a group that advocates the specific charges in front of the court does.


The judge did the right thing by asking another judge to make the call, and the other judge did the right thing by granting the motion for reassignment.

The appointment of Judge Duncan was, as I understand it, statutory. The trial judge hears the initial motion and decides to recuse himself or by statute hands it to a superior judge. I'm not casting aspersions on Judge Perkins - just pointing out that he probably did not see grounds to recuse himself.

From a Law.com article (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1129898337874&rss=newswire):

Perkins had little choice with regard to the recusal motion. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18(c) requires that after a motion to recuse a judge is filed, the judge either must recuse himself or request the regional administrative judge to assign a judge to hear the motion.

I think the real fight will be over the change of venue motion and in jury selection.

[SezMe]

This is also a good thing for the prosecution, even if the prosecutor won't admit it. Imagine a conviction here. Now imagine a conviction from a judge who contributed to moveon.org. Sheesh, the whining that's avoided by this simple change makes it worth it, let alone removing a possible grounds for appeal.
Uh-oh. manny, I'm slipping 'cause I agree with you. :) Excellent point.

[jj]

I think you're confusing my right to free speech under the First Amendment with the judicial requirement to avoid the appearance of bias.

No, I think you're confusing the Judge's right to free speech with the judge's responsibliity to avoid bias.

[Luke T.]

Luke, I agree that a donation to MoveOn does link the judge with that ad in an implicit manner, but I don't agree with your characterization of MoveOn as an "extremeist" organization. On the spectrum from simple advocacy to stridency to extremeist, where do you draw the line that delineates an organization (either right or left) as extremist?

Oh, and while I's asking, I guess I should check my assumption: When you use the word "extremist" can I assume that you mean that in a perjorative manner?

Thanks

Rather than get in another pointless argument about what "extremist" means and who is, I will withdraw that adjective from my comments about MoveOn. The term does not matter to the point or evidence that MoveOn had a HardOn for DeLay, specifically targetting him by name, and that the judge supported them financially during that period.

[NoZed Avenger]

I would be interested in seeing a list of what groups DeLay would find to be objectionable as donation recipients. Do you think there would be any Republican PACs on the list? Would Operation Rescue be on there?

I suspect that is why both sides are given attorneys.

[Manny]

The appointment of Judge Duncan was, as I understand it, statutory. The trial judge hears the initial motion and decides to recuse himself or by statute hands it to a superior judge. I'm not casting aspersions on Judge Perkins - just pointing out that he probably did not see grounds to recuse himself.

From a Law.com article (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1129898337874&rss=newswire)Ah. Didn't realize that bumping it upstairs was automatic there, as opposed to something which had to be appealed upon refusal to recuse. Then he definitely did the right thing! ;) (For the record, the Law.com article got the wrong section. It's 18(a)(c).)

On the other thing, I think we're saying the same thing; I was merely distinguishing the two to highlight that actual impartiality is not an issue. For other readers, the text from the Texas Rules provide for recusal in cases where "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." (18(b) 2(a))

[NoZed Avenger]

All I can find that MoveOn ran are anti-Bush ads for the 2004 campaign. No "Vote Kerry" ads.


Weren't they prohibited from endorsing a candidate in their ads under the new get-the-dirty-money-out-of-politics laws? I think they were limited to issue advocacy and running ads against. That doesn't undercut your point any, but I doubt any of the similar organziations actually ran ads "for" anyone.

[Manny]

Weren't they prohibited from endorsing a candidate in their ads under the new get-the-dirty-money-out-of-politics laws? I think they were limited to issue advocacy and running ads against. That doesn't undercut your point any, but I doubt any of the similar organziations actually ran ads "for" anyone.That's correct. The government banned endorsement ads and then all the people in the government who voted for the ban expressed shock at all the negative campaigning -- that the people not allowed to say nice things about the people they liked instead said bad things about the people they didn't.

I think I speak for almost everybody when I say, "oy."

[fishbob]

MoveOn was about unseating Bush and DeLay and Frist and just about every Republican, not about electing Kerry.

Look at their ads. They are hate ads aimed at Republicans, not support ads for Democratic candidates.

I am not familiar with MoveOn, so I checked out MoveOn's web site. I can't find hate ads against any non-lying sleazebag Republicans. Maybe I missed something but I could find no ads against McCain, no ads against Governor Arnold, no adds against the great majority of Republican congressmen and senators.

Just because certain conservative republicans are lying sleazebags, the words 'Republican' and "Conservative' are not synonymous with sleazebag.

[Luke T.]

Weren't they prohibited from endorsing a candidate in their ads under the new get-the-dirty-money-out-of-politics laws? I think they were limited to issue advocacy and running ads against. That doesn't undercut your point any, but I doubt any of the similar organziations actually ran ads "for" anyone.

Another result is that when you reach the maximum allowable limit to give to a candidate, you can pump all the money you want into one of these organizations, thereby mooting the campaign finance laws.

And if they are prevented from endorsing a candidate, how do you explain this (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=MoveOn#Candidates_supported)?

The MoveOn PAC endorsed 30 Democratic political candidates in the 2000 election cycle

Kerry's name is not on there. :D

ETA: D'oh! Kerry was not on the ticket in 2000. But I dont' see Gore either.

[Luke T.]

Here is MoveOn's 2004 candidate endorsement list (https://www.moveonpac.org/candidates.html). No Kerry, but they are endorsing candidates.

ETA:

Authorized by:
Paul Babbit for U.S. Congress
Melissa Bean for Congress
Erskine Bowles for U.S. Senate
Steve Brozak for Congress
Carson for Senate, Inc.
Betty Castor for U.S. Senate
Daly for Congress
Driscoll for Congress
Nancy Farmer for U.S. Senate
Diane Farrell for Congress
Joe Hoeffel for U.S. Senate
Friends of Jon Jennings
Committee to Elect Patsy Keever
Knowles for U.S. Senate
Denise Majette for U.S. Senate
Mongiardo for U.S. Senate
Lois Murphy for U.S. Congress
Patty Murray for U.S. Senate
Committee to Elect Richard Romero
Friends of Dave Ross
Salazar for Senate
John Salazar for Congress
Ginny Schrader for Congress
Allyson Schwartz for Congress
Jim Sullivan for Congress
Inez Tenenbaum for U.S. Senate
Patty Wetterling for U.S. Congress
PAID FOR BY MoveOn.org Political Action

[Luke T.]

I am not familiar with MoveOn, so I checked out MoveOn's web site. I can't find hate ads against any non-lying sleazebag Republicans. Maybe I missed something but I could find no ads against McCain, no ads against Governor Arnold, no adds against the great majority of Republican congressmen and senators.

Just because certain conservative republicans are lying sleazebags, the words 'Republican' and "Conservative' are not synonymous with sleazebag.

You don't think that they went after Bush and DeLay and Frist had anything to do with the fact they were the President, the House Majority Leader, and the Senate Majority Leader, do ya?

If you can sleaze them, you sleaze the whole structure.

[Manny]

And if they are prevented from endorsing a candidate, how do you explain this (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=MoveOn#Candidates_supported)?
Two reasons. 1) Moveonpac is a separate organization from moveon.org, with different finances. Specifically, people may not donate more than $5000 to moveonpac, whereas they may give unlimited amounts to moveon.org. 2) Whilst the differing rules allow moveonpac to endorse candidates, they may not run ads endorsing the candidates -- they essentially acted as a conduit from donors to the endorsed candidates' own fundraising apparatuses.

[Cylinder]

On the other thing, I think we're saying the same thing; I was merely distinguishing the two to highlight that actual impartiality is not an issue.

Yup - I misread your point. You were stating that an actual instance of bias is not sufficient as a judicial protection. I read it as an actual instance of bias not being sufficient grounds for recusal. Mea culpa.

Now I just have to make it past that third-grade reader...

[Luke T.]

Two reasons. 1) Moveonpac is a separate organization from moveon.org, with different finances. Specifically, people may not donate more than $5000 to moveonpac, whereas they may give unlimited amounts to moveon.org. 2) Whilst the differing rules allow moveonpac to endorse candidates, they may not run ads endorsing the candidates -- they essentially acted as a conduit from donors to the endorsed candidates' own fundraising apparatuses.

It's still one and the same organization, just circumventing the laws while not doing anything illegal.

I wish I had saved a link to the topic where I predicted back in 2003 exactly this kind of thing. McCain and Feingold were stupid to think their campaign finance reform would work.

[Manny]

It's still one and the same organization, just circumventing the laws while not doing anything illegal. I understand. I was just explaining how it was that a) you are correct that moveon (generally, through their PAC) endorsed candidates and b) NoZed was also correct that they were barred from running endorsement ads. It's something of an off-topic aside to the main issue here.

I wish I had saved a link to the topic where I predicted back in 2003 exactly this kind of thing. McCain and Feingold were stupid to think their campaign finance reform would work.Yep. Weird law -- it's one of the rare example of both parties voting against their short-term pecuniary interests to stick to a principle. And they still screwed it up!

[Luke T.]

Yep. Weird law -- it's one of the rare example of both parties voting against their short-term pecuniary interests to stick to a principle. And they still screwed it up!

Well, I read the original McCain-Feingold bill and then the final version. Let's just say both parties didn't exactly vote against their own pecuniary interests. For example, in the original proposed bill, the franking privelege would be revoked during an election year. That didn't make it to the final version.

[NoZed Avenger]

Yep. Weird law -- it's one of the rare example of both parties voting against their short-term pecuniary interests to stick to a principle. And they still screwed it up!

The H[Rule 8] they voted against their interests.

The bill is a thinly-disguised incumbent-protection device that also prevents third parties from giving political viewpoints if they aren't part of the established press. Meanwhile, they got to look like they were doing something about all the evil money that they still manage to collect.

[Luke T.]

The H[Rule 8] they voted against their interests.

The bill is a thinly-disguised incumbent-protection device that also prevents third parties from giving political viewpoints if they aren't part of the established press. Meanwhile, they got to look like they were doing something about all the evil money that they still manage to collect.

What NoZed is referring to is the ban against campaign ads 30 days prior to an election. Meanwhile, an incumbent is more likely to appear on news programs right up to the election.

(edited for clarity)

[Manny]

The H[Rule 8] they voted against their interests.

The bill is a thinly-disguised incumbent-protection device that also prevents third parties from giving political viewpoints if they aren't part of the established press. Meanwhile, they got to look like they were doing something about all the evil money that they still manage to collect.Oh, the definitely screwed the third parties more than themselves. I was referring primarily to the soft money ban. The Democrats, who had been much more successful at raising that kind of money, wanted it banned, whereas the Republicans who had been more successful at hard money donations opposed banning it (exceptions on both sides). Additionally, banning soft money meant losing some control of the process. Don't you think Kerry would rather have seen George Soros' $12 million or whatever the final total was in the Democratic party's soft money warchest than off with a group so radical they opposed the invasion of Afghanistan?

[fishbob]

You don't think that they went after Bush and DeLay and Frist had anything to do with the fact they were the President, the House Majority Leader, and the Senate Majority Leader, do ya?

If you can sleaze them, you sleaze the whole structure.

Point 1: Could be, I have no way of knowing. Could be MoveOn was targeting sleazeballs. Do you have any evidence pointing one way or the other?

Point 2: You think somebody else sleazed Bush, DeLay, and Frist? Could be that Bush, DeLay, and Frist bear some responsibility for being perceived as sleazeballs.

[Cylinder]

Could be that Bush, DeLay, and Frist bear some responsibility for being perceived as sleazeballs.

The validity of MoveOn's stated positions on Tom DeLay is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Judge Perkins should recuse himself. The fact that he financially supported an organization that uses some of the particulars of the charges before the judge in fund raising efforts raises a reasonable question of propriety.

[Luke T.]

Point 1: Could be, I have no way of knowing. Could be MoveOn was targeting sleazeballs. Do you have any evidence pointing one way or the other?

There's plenty of evidence out there that Moore's evidentiary process is seriously lacking. As a result, I don't think anything they have to say is reliable.

Point 2: You think somebody else sleazed Bush, DeLay, and Frist? Could be that Bush, DeLay, and Frist bear some responsibility for being perceived as sleazeballs.

If someone is smeared, it does not automatically mean they are worthy of being smeared. That they are sleazeballs. Just ask Kerry.

As soon as someone is elevated to a position of great power, they become a smear campaign target by members of the opposite end of the spectrum, regardless of their deservedness. Believe me, if McCain were President, they'd be smearing him, too.

[Regnad Kcin]

Did Mr. DeLay also insist that Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, actively angling as she was for a position in the hoped-for Bush Administration, step aside during the Election 2000 recount process?

Just checking on consistency.

[SezMe]

Or the Secretary of State in Ohio who actively supported Shrub?

[fishbob]

The validity of MoveOn's stated positions on Tom DeLay is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Judge Perkins should recuse himself. The fact that he financially supported an organization that uses some of the particulars of the charges before the judge in fund raising efforts raises a reasonable question of propriety.I agree. Changing the judge on this basis is most reasonable - which is what DeLay's lawyer seems to be handling. Casting Perkins as incapable of fairness because of his political affiliation is not - which is what DeLay's PR machine is doing.

[fishbob]

As soon as someone is elevated to a position of great power, they become a smear campaign target by members of the opposite end of the spectrum, regardless of their deservedness. Believe me, if McCain were President, they'd be smearing him, too.

Nope. I do not believe you. I doubt that MoveOn could raise any funds at all if they targeted a relatively honorable, relatively reasonable, conservative Republican. I suspect that if a couple of decent candidates ran for president that neither end of the political spectrum could drum up much support for smearing.

[Manny]

Today, the judge in charge of picking the new judge recused himself on recommendation from the prosecution. (link) (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051103/D8DL5JL80.html)

[Luke T.]

Today, the judge in charge of picking the new judge recused himself on recommendation from the prosecution. (link) (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051103/D8DL5JL80.html)

Outrageous!!!!!!!!

BWA-HA-HA!

List of political contributions made by Judge B.B. Schraub (http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=TX&last=Schraub)

He didn't contribute anything to Bush in 2004. His last contribution was in 2002 to a Republican candidate for the senate.

Dammit! No contributions to Operation Rescue.

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps they'll have to dig out a judge who voted for Perot.

If there is such a thing.

[Manny]

Perhaps they'll have to dig out a judge who voted for Perot.See, now this here case is like a car. It's a pretty car, but it doesn't run. And what we've gotta do is we've gotta get under the hood and get to work. Now, this here chart shows Tom DeLay and Ronnie Earle conspiring with the CIA to ruin my daughter's wedding. You can tell 'cuz Ronnie has an "l" sound in his last name and Tom capitalizes the L in Delay, see? Now where was I...

[SezMe]

manny for Prez on the Independent ticket. Give 'em hell, manny. Er, you don't have a daughter who's planning on getting married, do you?

[President Bush]

Would it be so difficult to find a judge who has not contributed money...

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I40114-2005Mar16

I dunno. But Texas, along with Alabama, Louisiana, and West Virginia are the only states that hold fully funded partisan elections to choose judges. Not that I don't think good judges and good lawyers can't run a campaign without becoming beholden to independent contributors.


hehehaahahahehehaaheeheehahaaheehehaaheh


Guess that leaves, uh, Pennsylvania, Arizona, South Carolina, let's see, California, Vermont, Connecticut, North Carolina, uh, the District of Columbia, Oregon, Georgia, Hawaii, Nebraska, maybe Oklahoma, Indiana, New Mexico, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Washington, of course, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Minnesota, yeah, Wisconsin, Missouri, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Michigan, New Jersey, Iowa, I think New York, Delaware, North Dakota, Ohio, Illinois, and, uh, Florida, Alaska, Rhode Island, Arkansas, South Dakota, did I say Tennessee, Utah, Colorado, Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, and, uh, Wyoming.

Do the Bahamas count? Harriet has my offshore trust there. I can appoint her to sumpin' I bet.