[stupendousman]

...on when either Stestak admits he lied about the Obama administration, hurting his chances in November, or someone high up in the Obama food chain gets thrown under the bus for breaking the law? I can't see any way this doesn't result in a loss for Stestak or if he doesn't act quick, the next year or so with the Obama administration involved in a criminal probe which could possibly lead to impeachment (no exaggeration).

As most analysts have pointed out, it's a felony to promise a political appointment in exchange for influencing the results of an election. Stestak has gone on record as claiming that's exactly what happened. There's no real "wiggle room" in what he claimed unless he wan't to go back and change his story and come off as an unreliable flake (which he may very well be). The "Valerie Plame" incident had lots of caveats which made what happened to her not even illegal, and someone was convicted. I can't imagine that if Stestak doesn't change his tune, that someone at the very least won't have to resign to save Obama's skin.

So who takes the dive? Stestak or maybe Rahm? Let the betting commence!

[Big Mac]

Sestak isn't going down to save the administration some grief. I think we could see something similar to the Scooter Libby scandal.

[ebuddy]

The fact that Sestak is already running from this thing full throttle suggests he'll shut his good little pie-hole.

If he doesn't, there will be a "plane crash". We're in Chicago now baby!

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As most analysts have pointed out, it's a felony to promise a political appointment in exchange for influencing the results of an election.

What analysts? Can you site what law or statute has allegedly been broken? I'm willing to start a pool that you can't.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

What analysts? Can you site what law or statute has allegedly been broken? I'm willing to start a pool that you can't.

If anything it's "undue influence peddling," so if anyone gets charged it'll be for the same thing Blago was impeached for.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...on when either Stestak admits he lied about the Obama administration, hurting his chances in November, or someone high up in the Obama food chain gets thrown under the bus for breaking the law?

Haven't you heard? Slick Willie is getting thrown under the bus on this one. In a moment of sheer political genius, someone decided that Bill Clinton would have both the gravitas to make a credible offer and simultaneously no official ties to PBO's administration and therefore would be above reproach.

[You can't make a credible offer if you have no official power, therefore you cannot be responsible for influencing an election, which is the statutory violation in question.]

Man, those guys are GOOD. Gave me goosebumps when I heard about it. James Carville would be proud.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plu...sked_cl_1.html

I guess we should have anticipated this -- nobody did anything illegal, no more investigation is needed, move along citizens...nothing to see...

Brilliant.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

If anything it's "undue influence peddling," so if anyone gets charged it'll be for the same thing Blago was impeached for.

I don't think so. Blagojevich was asking for bribes ("pay to play"). Telling someone you will give them a job if they won't run ("if you make life easier for us, we'll do you a favor") is maybe sleazy, but I don't think it's against the law (there is nothing coercive about it).

[turtle777]

Yeah, that's kinda like the mob saying their request for payment to protect the local business is not really extortion, just a friendly "offer" to help.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yeah, that's kinda like the mob saying their request for payment to protect the local business is not really extortion, just a friendly "offer" to help.

-t

No, that would be coercion. There was no threat made, implied or explicit, in the Obama administration's offer, beyond simply the absence of their support for Sestak's campaign. That's pretty much the opposite of coercion -- Sestak was free to choose.

[turtle777]

Actually, my point was the euphemism.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

What analysts? Can you site what law or statute has allegedly been broken? I'm willing to start a pool that you can't.

Such bravado.

Here are the laws identified as potentially broken:

Title 18, U.S.C. Section 211 says, “Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year or both.”

Title 18, U.S.C. Section 595 says, “Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States … uses his official authority for the purposes of interfering with, or affecting the nomination of, or the election of any candidate for office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representative…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

18 U.S.C. Section 600 says, “Whoever directly or indirectly promises any employment position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, in favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Actually, my point was the euphemism.

-t

I know. My point is that there was no "euphemism" in the Sestak case that makes it at all similar. The White House wasn't threatening him with harm. They just said they weren't going to support him.

[turtle777]

The euphemism is that the White House supposedly only offered an "unpaid advisory board position".

RIGHT. That was gonna make Sestak quit.

You bet the message behind that offer was much more than that.

-t

[olePigeon]

Kinda funny because they all do it, but occasionally one of them gets caught.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Kinda funny because they all do it, but occasionally one of them gets caught.

That doesn't make it right.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The euphemism is that the White House supposedly only offered an "unpaid advisory board position".

RIGHT. That was gonna make Sestak quit.

You bet the message behind that offer was much more than that.

-t

Doesn't matter. They could have offered him eleventybillion dollars and it wouldn't have been illegal, just sleazy. They are emphasizing the unpaid part because of the sleaze factor.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

What analysts? Can you site what law or statute has allegedly been broken? I'm willing to start a pool that you can't.

Don't waste your money.

18 USC 600

Sestak said that the WHITE HOUSE approached him to take a JOB in exchange for dropping out.

That's illegal according to 18 USC 600.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I don't think so. Blagojevich was asking for bribes ("pay to play"). Telling someone you will give them a job if they won't run ("if you make life easier for us, we'll do you a favor") is maybe sleazy, but I don't think it's against the law (there is nothing coercive about it).

It's a violation of the law to either ask for bribes for political consideration, or to OFFER bribes for political consideration.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's a violation of the law to either ask for bribes for political consideration, or to OFFER bribes for political consideration.

They weren't asking for political consideration. You would have a point if they had asked him to endorse Specter or something similar.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Doesn't matter. They could offered him eleventybillion dollars and it wouldn't have been illegal, just sleazy. They are emphasizing the unpaid part because of the sleaze factor.

They offered him a government position. Sestak says it was a "job". Jobs have value, otherwise there's simply no reason to believe that Sestak would have been swayed. You don't talk someone out of running for high office which would give you a huge amount of political power and prestige with something of no value.

Sorry...that dog doesn't hunt. Either Sestak was lying, or the Obama administration has violated federal law in trying to bribe a candidate for office. The Bill Clinton scenario just isn't credible unless you think that a guy will drop out of a race which carries with it huge value if he wins for something of NO value.

Sorry...I don't think that the general public was born yesterday.

I'm betting one way or another, at least Sestak is history, along with the chances for Democrats in his district.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

They weren't asking for political consideration. You would have a point if they had asked him to endorse Specter or something similar.

They offered him a valuable government resource in order for him to do what was in Obama's political interest. How that isn't a political consideration, I have no idea.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That doesn't make it right.

I just said it was funny, in an ironic sense. Kinda like the Congress chastising investment bank CEOs over morals. I don't know how they can take themselves seriously.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They offered him a valuable government resource in order for him to do what was in Obama's political interest. How that isn't a political consideration, I have no idea.

Your first sentence is correct, but that's the case in any political appointment by definition. It is not illegal in and of itself. The crux in this case is that by extending the offer, the White House was simply offering Sestak an alternative. They were not interfering in the election (it's legitimately Sestak's choice, as the actual events revealed) and they were not rewarding "political activity" so much as they were persuading Sestak to not undertake political activity in the first place. It's not illegal by the letter or intent of the law.

[Paco500]

So the President cannot offer an appointment to anyone running for office? Did McCain violate this when he asked Sarah Palin to be his running mate? If they had won, it certainly would have effected the outcome of the next Alaska Governors race. Would no one be eligible to be selected for the office of VP if they were also running for another office?

This is a tempest in a tea-pot. Get worked up if you want to. Read into whatever statutes you want. Bookmark this. If anyone gets convicted of anything for this, I'll send Big Mac and Stupendousman a $25 gift certificate to the store of their choice- as long as it can be purchased and delivered on-line.

Are either of you willing to step up to the plate with a similar offer? We'll keep it reasonable- 12 months.

[Montezuma58]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Your first sentence is correct, but that's the case in any political appointment by definition. It is not illegal in and of itself. The crux in this case is that by extending the offer, the White House was simply offering Sestak an alternative. They were not interfering in the election (it's legitimately Sestak's choice, as the actual events revealed) and they were not rewarding "political activity" in the sense that they would be preventing political activity in the first place. It's not illegal by the letter of the law.

Sestak's acceptance or refusal of the offer has no bearing on whether or not the offer itself was legal. If the offer was made with the intent to influence the outcome of an election then it was illegal. If you believe Sestak's version that is exactly what happened.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Montezuma58 

Sestak's acceptance or refusal of the offer has no bearing on whether or not the offer itself was legal. If the offer was made with the intent to influence the outcome of an election then it was illegal. If you believe Sestak's version that is exactly what happened.

It was made to "influence the outcome of an election" only inasmuch as it would have affected the composition of the candidates for the election in the first place. It would not have influenced the outcome of the election itself. That's what the relevant laws address. Paco500 has it exactly correct. You could extend it further. Let's say I worked in the private sector and I wanted to offer Joe Smith a job, but, oh, he tells me he's considering running for Congress. Well, if I still offer him the job would I be criminally guilty of trying to "influence the outcome of an election"? That's ridiculous. \

To put it another way, although the two are obviously related, the "outcome of the election" (who wins) is not the same as the "input to an election" (who runs). The laws that Big Mac cited above are not relevant here. People can be influenced by all sorts of reasons to run or not run for office that have nothing whatsoever to do with laws that guarantee the free and fair process of an election.

[BadKosh]

It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is...... LOL

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is...... LOL

Nothing that obtuse.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It was made to "influence the outcome of an election" only inasmuch as it would have affected the composition of the candidates for the election in the first place.

Which is unquestionably influencing an election. Primary elections are elections, and they influence the outcomes of the general elections they precede.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Which is unquestionably influencing an election. Primary elections are elections, and they influence the outcomes of the general elections they precede.

I was referring to the primary election itself. I recognize that the laws in question also cover primary elections. As I explained though, what is under discussion here does not apply as illegal influence.

[Big Mac]

Title 18 Sec. 595 quoted above and based on the facts as we know them (including the White House's statement from today) tells me that Rahmbo may be guilty. Sec. 600 refers specifically to a general or special election so it's a bit of a stretch because we're talking about a primary, but 595 definitely seems to apply.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Title 18 Sec. 595 quoted above and based on the facts as we know them (including the White House's statement from today) tells me that Rahmbo may be guilty. Sec. 600 refers specifically to a general or special election so it's a bit of a stretch because we're talking about a primary, but 595 definitely seems to apply.

Where it says "uses his official authority for the purposes of interfering with, or affecting the nomination of, or the election of any candidate," I really don't think what took place here applies. I don't see how it could be said the White House's offer interfered with or affected the nomination of Sestak. It had the potential to affect Sestak's decision to pursue the nomination. It had no impact on his nomination, that is, the results of his decision as they played out in a fair and competitive primary process. I really think you are broadening the scope of this law beyond what it intends, which is to preserve the process, and not guarantee that peoples' decisions to run for office are made in a political vacuum. It's widely understood that party leaders might offer deals in order to persuade people to run or not run for certain seats. That's part of the whole point behind apparatuses like the parties' individual Congressional Campaign Committees, to organize the larger strategy for particular election cycles.

[hyteckit]

Does the law prohibit asking a presidential candidate to drop out of the race and run as the VP candidate instead?

Or asking the presidential candidate to drop out by promising a position in the cabinet?

Or asking someone to take a position requiring the person to leave the current job title, leading to a special election?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Does the law prohibit asking a presidential candidate to drop out of the race and run as the VP candidate instead?

Only if they are a sitting POTUS.

Or asking the presidential candidate to drop out by promising a position in the cabinet?

Only if they are a sitting POTUS.
example. Jimmy Carter offers Edward Kennedy Sec of State to end his 1980 primary run.

Or asking someone to take a position requiring the person to leave the current job title, leading to a special election?

Thank god no, or we would still have Napalitano as Gov.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Where it says "uses his official authority for the purposes of interfering with, or affecting the nomination of, or the election of any candidate," I really don't think what took place here applies.

I don't see how it can be construed any other way based on what we know. At least it seems like you're progressing from your original position that there is no issue at law here.

I don't see how it could be said the White House's offer interfered with or affected the nomination of Sestak. It had the potential to affect Sestak's decision to pursue the nomination. It had no impact on his nomination, that is, the results of his decision as they played out in a fair and competitive primary process. I really think you are broadening the scope of this law beyond what it intends, which is to preserve the process, and not guarantee that peoples' decisions to run for office are made in a political vacuum. It's widely understood that party leaders might offer deals in order to persuade people to run or not run for certain seats. That's part of the whole point behind apparatuses like the parties' individual Congressional Campaign Committees, to organize the larger strategy for particular election cycles.

The law doesn't say that the outcome of the nomination process has to be influenced for there to have been a crime committed. § 595 simply says that a person in an administrative position who interferes with the nomination process of a candidate for Senate has committed a crime. There is no question in my mind that based on what we know as of today, someone in the administration is guilty of violating § 595. It sounds like Dead Fish Rahm is in trouble because according to the official story he asked Clinton to help Sestak "explore his options."

Whether or not anyone is held accountable by the administration or an independent prosecutor remains to be seen. Usually people in power can circumvent the same sorts of laws that ordinary citizens get held to. But to deny that this isn't what it appears to be seems to be nothing more than partisan denial.

[besson3c]

How about a pool as to whether this Sestak thing will become the new Obama-is-not-born-in-this-country conspiracy?

Just teasing, stupendousman! BTW, I'm more stupendous than you, just so we're clear...

[Dork.]

I'm in with Spacemonkey here. I agree with his reading of the relevant laws - that they involve direct tampering with the election process. Sort of like sending Federal Marshals to arrest election officials on bogus charges, and when the mess gets resolved the ballot boxes have conveniently gotten "lost". Or offering a state election official support in his career if he conveniently "miscounted" the votes in certain areas.

If you read the law more broadly, then it is illegal to offer any member of Congress a job in the Administration, especially if they had initially stated a willingness to run for reelection again. Because if they accepted, it would surely have affected the outcome of the next election!

People might be getting confused because the Constitution prohibits members of Congress from having other paid Government positions while serving in Congress. So when Rahm first had his idea of getting Sestak a plum appointment, he may have wanted to give Sestak a paid job, but then realized that he couldn't accept one and still keep his House seat. If there is any shady behavior in this affair, it is here and not in election law: if they ever did actually offer Sestak a paid position while intending for him to keep his House seat, that would get folks in trouble.

[ebuddy]

None of it really matters because nothing will come of it. Sestak waited for official White House response, then offered his own; consistent with the White House response and inconsistent with his own initial claim. Like I said; "a good little boy who'll keep his pie-hole shut." We're supposed to believe that an Executive branch review board offer came across Sestak's desk conveniently while he was running against the candidate of the Democratic establishment's choosing; an offer for an unpaid position so sweet as to persuade a candidate to give up his bid for a congressional seat? Yeah it stinks, it was illegal to the letter of law, but that doesn't mean it has any weight with government officials.

The fox conducted an investigation of the henhouse raid and found the fox innocent. Nothing to see here... move along stupid. The "change" mantra of "transparency" should've been a threat, not a selling point.

[Dork.]

Except, it wasn't "illegal to the letter of the law", no matter how many times you all say it is. In order for it to be illegal, you have to deliberately misinterpret the relevant statutes. It could be construed as shady, and the folks who wonder if this is really "change we can believe in" have a valid point. It's worth talking about, but not illegal.

And as far as Sestak's "initial claim" goes, as far as I know it was a throwaway line in a television interview a few months ago where Sestak said the White House offered him a job. No details there, and a lot of room for interpretation. I don't think Sestak ever represented it as anything troublesome.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't see how it can be construed any other way based on what we know. At least it seems like you're progressing from your original position that there is no issue at law here.

I'm still saying there is no issue relevant to the law here. I've just been explaining why.

The law doesn't say that the outcome of the nomination process has to be influenced for there to have been a crime committed. § 595 simply says that a person in an administrative position who interferes with the nomination process of a candidate for Senate has committed a crime.

I know that. What I'm saying is that regardless of the outcome, the intent has to be to disrupt the nomination, i.e. the process. An obvious counter example would be if there were a nominating convention, and someone used their influence in an administrative position to try to unduly sway the votes of convention delegates. But to say that someone can't make an offer that might dissuade someone from pursuing the nomination in the first place is not at all what the law is talking about. That happens all the time, and that's not interfering with a nomination. Saying you are seeking the nomination is not the same thing as the nomination itself.

This isn't a partisan denial. This is a close and correct reading of the law.

It's also not clear to me why, from a practical standpoint, you think the law would be concerned about cases like Sestak's in the first place. The reason why the laws are worded to be specific about the process is that their purpose is fundamentally to guard against disenfranchisement. People need to be sure that their votes will be counted and that whoever wants to can run for office if they meet legitimate administrative requirements. The reasons why Sestak might chose to run or not run seem to me to be beyond what any law would reasonably be able to enforce. You can't take the politics out of a political decision.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Except, it wasn't "illegal to the letter of the law", no matter how many times you all say it is. In order for it to be illegal, you have to deliberately misinterpret the relevant statutes. It could be construed as shady, and the folks who wonder if this is really "change we can believe in" have a valid point. It's worth talking about, but not illegal.

The law says "whoever directly or indirectly promises any employment position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, in favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”"

Offering Sestak an "appointment" as a "reward" for the "political activity" of dropping out of a race for "political office" can't really be interpreted as anything but a violation of the letter of the law. Not if you stand on your head. Not if you look at it sideways.

The Obama administration would not have offered whatever they offered him unless they believed he'd consider it a thing of value. Offering such to influence a political race is illegal. There's really no two ways about it. The Obama administration violated federal law, and it appears that now Sestak is suggesting he told the truth, but now thinks it's no big deal that President Obama tried to bribe him.

I'm guessing that if Obama thinks this will avoid a special prosecutor (because I don't think anyone is dumb enough to believe this obvious cover story) or Sestak will avoid this being an issue during the election, both should think again.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

II know that. What I'm saying is that regardless of the outcome, the intent has to be to disrupt the nomination, i.e. the process.

I'm pretty sure that offering government resources to a candidate to drop out of the race disrupts the process. If it works, it changes the process completely. You go from two candidates squaring off to one simply getting the nomination by default, which was the intent in offering Sestak the valuable government position.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Kinda funny because they all do it, but occasionally one of them gets caught.

List the incidents.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

So the President cannot offer an appointment to anyone running for office? Did McCain violate this when he asked Sarah Palin to be his running mate? If they had won, it certainly would have effected the outcome of the next Alaska Governors race. Would no one be eligible to be selected for the office of VP if they were also running for another office?

This is a tempest in a tea-pot. Get worked up if you want to. Read into whatever statutes you want. Bookmark this. If anyone gets convicted of anything for this, I'll send Big Mac and Stupendousman a $25 gift certificate to the store of their choice- as long as it can be purchased and delivered on-line.

Are either of you willing to step up to the plate with a similar offer? We'll keep it reasonable- 12 months.

You expect the democrats to actually show integrity? LOL! Especially with the stacked deck they have now?

[stupendousman]

This does happen all the time. As it's been pointed out, it happens all the time because usually no one rats the other side out like Sestak has. People get away with it because it's hard to prove "quid pro quo" unless of of the sides opens their mouth (or someone is caught with thousands of dollars in their refrigerator).

Here one side opened their mouth, and claimed "quid pro quo." If what Sestak claims and now has been admitted actually happened, then someone in the Obama administration violated federal law. If Obama signed off, he really should resign. I don't see how he can admit trying to bribe someone and stay in office.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Are either of you willing to step up to the plate with a similar offer? We'll keep it reasonable- 12 months.

Am I willing to bet that that Democrats won't continue to be corrupt?

Uh..no.

Bill Clinton serially violated election law and engaged in criminal perjury and was never convicted of anything. We were told there was "no controlling legal authority" and that it depended on what the definition of "is is" and Janet Reno looked the other way despite the law clearly being violated.

I don't expect them to have the same standards the Republicans had back in the times of Watergate, so I'd never bet they'd start. I will however bet that their power continues to sink the lower they go, starting with Obama and Sestak. We can already see it happening....

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm pretty sure that offering government resources to a candidate to drop out of the race disrupts the process.
If it works, it changes the process completely. You go from two candidates squaring off to one simply getting the nomination by default, which was the intent in offering Sestak the valuable government position.

No, you are missing my point. The process is the same (open, fair and competitive) regardless of the number of candidates. You are arguing that it is illegal to provide an alternative in order to convince someone to not run for office, but if that's the case then the NRCC and the DCCC are guilty of that thousands of times over. You have tunnel vision here for some reason.

Read the rest of my post and respond to it, instead of just repeating your previous claim. Provide some substantiation. You can't legislate the rationale someone uses to run or not run for office. "Quid pro pro" is not illegal in and of itself.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The law says "whoever directly or indirectly promises any employment position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, in favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”"

Offering Sestak an "appointment" as a "reward" for the "political activity" of dropping out of a race for "political office" can't really be interpreted as anything but a violation of the letter of the law. Not if you stand on your head. Not if you look at it sideways.

I still stand by my assertion that this statute applies to the election process itself, not the decision to run in the first place. Whether or not a candidate runs for office is a personal decision. In fact, the election is a lot like a job interview for public office. And like any other personal employment decision, whether or not you apply for the job depends on what other opportunities are available at the time. If I announced publically that I wanted to run for Congress (implying that I intend to quit my day job), and then my employer offers me a big fat raise to stay where I am, is my employer breaking the law?

Remember that this statute applies to anyone who tamers with an election, not just public officials. If we use your flawed interpretation of the law, then running for office just got a lot more complicated: if you decide to withdraw, your motives potentially come under scrutiny to find out if anyone else induced you to do so.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Except, it wasn't "illegal to the letter of the law", no matter how many times you all say it is.

You might know this is debatable contingent upon whether or not you appreciate the players involved. When several congressmen and a former Justice Dept official claim it is technically illegal, they are saying it violates the letter of the law and I'm guessing they're as intimately familiar with the law as we. That said, I'm willing to soften my tone to hear some explanations, but so far the explanations have only begged more questions.

Illegal? Okay, maybe not, but I think it warrants a little more investigation. Sometimes politicians are capable of gaffes including those that implicate others.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I still stand by my assertion that this statute applies to the election process itself, not the decision to run in the first place.

"Any political activity" seems to be pretty all encompassing in regards to how it might effect an election, and there's really nothing to limit it to just what you claim. It would be silly to exclude using government resources, entrusted to elected officials, to be used as bribes to keep people from competing with you or those who can help you personally or politically. Doesn't seem to make much sense.

Whether or not a candidate runs for office is a personal decision. In fact, the election is a lot like a job interview for public office. And like any other personal employment decision, whether or not you apply for the job depends on what other opportunities are available at the time. If I announced publically that I wanted to run for Congress (implying that I intend to quit my day job), and then my employer offers me a big fat raise to stay where I am, is my employer breaking the law?

In this case, it isn't a private company offering it's own private funds which have to be spent in the interest of shareholders. It's public resources entrusted to elected officials being used to influence others to do what is politically or personally beneficial to those misusing the resources. It's absurd to think that it would be legal to give "quid pro quo" jobs to people to keep them from competing with your personal goals.

Remember that this statute applies to anyone who tamers with an election, not just public officials. If we use your flawed interpretation of the law, then running for office just got a lot more complicated: if you decide to withdraw, your motives potentially come under scrutiny to find out if anyone else induced you to do so.

True. No one can bribe elected officials or potential elected officials with things of value or government resources with the purpose of influencing elections. I'm pretty sure that's how it always has been. Yes, it will be harder to engage in corrupt and unethical activities if this is enforced, but I'm pretty sure that was the intent of the law in the first place.