[EL] Siegelman

[Lowenstein, Daniel]

         I am less surprised than Rick and slightly less disappointed that the Court declined to hear Siegelman.  As I read the briefs filed with the Supreme Court, the petitioner was presenting the case as one that squarely raises the hard questions about when a campaign contribution is a bribe, while the respondent presented it as a factual matter.  According to the respondent, the evidence supported Siegelman's conviction on any plausible interpretation of the bribery statute.

         I have not read the record in the case and have no basis for an opinion on whether the petitioner's contention is meritorious, but it did seem to me likely that whether or not the Court accepted the case would turn in significant part on which side's characterization of the case struck the justices as correct.  Indeed, they may have resolved doubts against taking the case, lest they risk getting into a bog over the evidence.

         I am disappointed, because like Rick and many others I think some clarification by the Court would be helpful.  But my disappointment is tempered by my skepticism of whether all that much clarification is likely.  My reasons for skepticism were set forth in my "When Is a Campaign Contribution a Bribe?" in a 2004 book entitled "Private and Public Corruption," edited by William Heffernan and John Kleinig.

             Best,

             Daniel H. Lowenstein
             Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
             UCLA Law School
             405 Hilgard
             Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
             310-825-5148


________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 7:18 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] Siegelman

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Siegelman Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35138>
Posted on June 4, 2012 7:16 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35138> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

According to the Court’s order list<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/060412zor.pdf>, there were no dissents.  I am very surprised,<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=34621> and disappointed. The John Edwards case brought to the public’s attention the risk of criminal prosecutions based upon murky law and potentially overzealous prosecutors.

MORE<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_SIEGELMAN_?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT> from AP.

[cid:part7.03030308.00020302 at law.uci.edu]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35138&title=Supreme%20Court%20Declines%20to%20Hear%20Siegelman%20Case&description=>
Posted in bribery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>, campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> | Comments Off |
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120604/69240580/attachment.png>