Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Just curious - how does this differ from the normal "I'll vote for your pork if you vote for mine" dance?
|
There used to be a treasurer in Massachusetts (yes, a Dem) who could expound at great length on the distinction between "honest graft" and "dishonest graft" - the first being someone who made him rich because they wanted to hang out with him, with never a quid pro quo entering the equation. The latter being quid-pro-quos yielding personal benefit, which he would have done of. It was a kind of honor among theives distinction to many, but it is the way the law has been written.
What DeLay did was buy a vote with a private benefit; he entered into a transaction where he explicitly traded something relevant to governing and legislation for benefits that were not so related. Now, if there was no quid-pro-quo, we're back to honor among theives.
But, frankly, I always found it an embarassment to have elected officials who parsed the lines so tightly, and have always supported those who tried to be beyond reproach and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Shouldn't we expect as much from our leaders?
