Two words: Don Siegelman
He was Governor of Alabama who had a conversation that went somewhat like this.
An education lottery referendum was on the ballot, and a wealthy man, who was previously appointed to a powerful board, offered to donate $500,000. In return, he asked to be reappointed to the board, and the Governor did so.
Both were convicted of bribery for this.
Let me say that again. A two-time Governor-appointed board member gave a contribution not to the Governor, not to the Governor’s campaign, but to an independent referendum PAC, and the Governor gave him a third term on the board.
Both were convicted of bribery.
If that’s bribery, where were they when Tim Kaine was doing this?
In 2005, when Tim Kaine was Lt. Governor, he was offered a vacation on the island of Mustique by a member of the Virginia Commission on Higher Education, and Kaine somehow acquired the wisdom after taking the $18,000 gift of this vacation to re-appoint the gift giver to the Board once he became Governor…
That same year, Governor Kaine accepted $3,500 in clothing gifts from Stuart C. Siegal, of S&K fame, to go with $2,000 of clothing Siegal gave him two years earlier. As Governor, Tim Kaine, in a moment of enlightenment, appointed him to the Virginia Racing Commission…
And let’s not forget the thousands of dollars in travel Kaine accepted for trips from the person whom he would reward with the job of Deputy Secretary of Transportation.
Why should Tim Kaine be relieved?
With a statute of limitations only being five years, it looks like Kaine skated by the skin of his teeth.
And why should McDonnell be concerned?
Remember the Governor who went to jail because a donor contributed to a referendum PAC.
He appealed his case to the Supreme Court and it was never even heard. No votes! No campaigns! A mere two months ago, and The Supreme Court said it wasn’t good enough for them to hear it.
“If I had known I was coming close to the line where a campaign contribution becomes a bribe and a crime, I would have stopped.” Gov. Siegelman
Sound familiar?
If the Supreme Court couldn’t find four votes to accept that case, where a Governor was convicted of taking a bribe that didn’t even go to him or his campaign, how likely is it that they will hear the case where a Governor accepted gifts and loans in the six figures?
I personally think the Court needs to sort these cases out and draw very distinct lines between gifts, contributions, loans and official acts. But the Court hasn’t shown a bit of interest in doing so.
For McDonnell’s sake, I hope they hear the case.
But I wouldn’t count on it.
