And my beloved Nick Smith bribery scandal continues…
The Washington Post, which has done a pretty solid job covering this story, finally ran an editorial today, arguing that the Justice Department “should fully investigate” the incident. I don’t imagine John Ashcroft cares too much what the editorial board of the Post thinks, but items like these keep the pressure on. And when they appear in the Post, they remind key players in DC of the significance of the scandal.
After reviewing the relevant details, the Post editorial explains why the Smith bribery story is different from the routine pressure placed on lawmakers in Congres.
“[L]awmakers understand full well when they cast a critical vote that it is apt to affect their ability to obtain campaign contributions from the affected industries or interest groups,” the editorial said. “Yet there is a distinction between an implicit understanding of the likely financial consequences of an important vote and an explicit quid pro quo of campaign cash for a vote the desired way. The federal bribery statute makes it a crime to offer ‘anything of value’ to a public official ‘with intent to influence any official act.'”
The Post also explained the need for a formal investigation to see if any laws were broken.
“To bludgeon a lawmaker to switch his vote in exchange for campaign cash, to threaten retribution against the lawmaker’s son if he votes his conscience — this is well beyond the line of acceptable arm-twisting. House ethics rules require lawmakers to act ‘in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.’ Does the House leadership think that standard was met in the case of Mr. Smith?”