Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/624400
GregStevens,Publisher Chip Thompson, Editor EDITORIALBOARD How to have your say: Letters must be signed and provide the writer's home street address and home phone number. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and no more than two double-spaced pages or 500words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section will be published. Email: editor@ redbluffdailynews.com Fax: 530-527-9251 Mail to: P.O. Box 220, 545 Diamond Ave., Red Bluff, CA 96080 Facebook: Leave comments at FACEBOOK.COM/ RBDAILYNEWS Twitter: Follow and send tweets to @REDBLUFFNEWS "Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the govern- ment's purposes are beneficent." — Louis Brandeis The impulse to ferret cor- ruption from politics cor- rupts the criminal justice system when it causes overzeal- ous prosecu- tors and judges to improvise novel interpre- tations of the law of bribery. Consider Rob- ert McDonnell's case. Virginia's former Republi- can governor has been sen- tenced to prison for actions that he could not have rea- sonably anticipated would be declared felonies under a dangerous judicial expansion of federal law defining brib- ery of public officials. Friday the Supreme Court will de- cide whether to review Mc- Donnell's conviction. Compelling reasons for doing so are explained in friend-of-the-court briefs submitted by, among others, 31 current governors; 60 for- mer state attorneys general (six from Virginia filed their own); 13 former federal offi- cials, including two former U.S. attorneys general and former legal counsels to ev- ery president starting with Ronald Reagan; and three law professors from Harvard and the University of Vir- ginia. All agree that McDon- nell's conviction resulted from unreasonably stretching the understanding of quid pro quo corruption — you do X for me, I will do Y for you. Democratic politics is al- ways and everywhere a trans- actional business. Promises are made to secure permis- sion to wield power: If we support you, will you pur- sue policies we prefer? Vote for me and I will deliver this benefit for you. And for 240 years American politicians have been attentive to sup- porters who contribute to those whose agendas they fa- vor. McDonnell had an un- seemly relationship with a Richmond businessman who showered the governor with substantial gifts, loans and perquisites. Virginia law permits state officials to accept gifts, and never during McDonnell's trial did prosecutors suggest that he had violated state law. If the businessman hoped that McDonnell would take official government actions benefiting his diet supple- ment enterprise, he was dis- appointed. The Supreme Court and other courts have defined an "official act" as the actual ex- ercise of government power. The businessman wanted certain acts — state funding for his firm, a state study to validate his supplement, and inclusion of it in Virginia's health plan. None of these acts occurred. Nevertheless, prosecu- tors presented a redefinition of "official act" and the trial judge instructed jurors that they could find an "official act" in behavior that could have some attenuated con- nection to a potential govern- ment decision later. An ap- pellate court has endorsed this. So, McDonnell faces in- carceration for five things. He asked one of his aides a question about research per- taining to the businessman's company. He twice attended receptions the business- man attended. He arranged a meeting with his staff and the businessman and sug- gested another meeting to an aide. The Supreme Court has held that "ingratiation and access ... are not corruption," and that the government may not target for proscription "the general gratitude a can- didate may feel toward those who support him or his al- lies, or the political access such support may afford." This case implicates the First Amendment right to seek access to elected offi- cials in order to petition the government. Also, the appellate court's approval of the prosecutors' capacious redefinition of an "official act" empowers the executive branch to perform the legislative function of de- marcating which "routine po- litical pleasantries" (from the brief of the former state at- torneys general) constitute "common political courtesy" and which are "indictable corruption." Furthermore, federalism has become a casualty in this case. The former state attor- neys general note that if "the sweeping definition of 'offi- cial act'" is allowed to stand, this "would federalize the law of public corruption," some- thing Congress has not cho- sen to do. Absent a Supreme Court intervention now, or a con- gressional decision down the road, federal prosecutors will be empowered "to transform innocent political courtesies into fodder for federal prose- cutions." And McDonnell will be im- prisoned for facilitating a few meetings, in violation of this bedrock principle: Due process is denied when the law does not give due notice of proscribed behavior. Such notice also circumscribes the discretion of overzealous prosecutors, of whom there is no shortage. The tawdry context of this case — Mc- Donnell's legal but unseemly acceptance of the busi- nessman's vulgar largesse — probably incited the prose- cutors and judge to stretch the law to ensnare an unsym- pathetic defendant. But the criminalization of normal political interactions is es- pecially ominous when aes- thetic considerations expose a person to prosecution for actions inseparable from the quotidian business of repre- sentative government. Again, Brandeis: "The greatest dangers to lib- erty lurk in the insidious en- croachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without un- derstanding." In this case, without un- derstanding the dynamics of democracy. GeorgeWill'semailaddress is georgewill@washpost.com. George Will Thecriminalization of normal political interactions Cartoonist's take The great Will Rogers was quoted as avowing, "All I know is what I read in the papers." How- ever, his actual quote was "All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance." I was re- minded of his fa- mous quote when the Daily News printed a curious short article on page A8 of last Saturday's paper. It was headed, "State of Jefferson going to Capitol." This article was curious in that it was un-attrib- uted, had no byline or source and appeared to be an unabashed en- dorsement of the frivolous notion to divide our fair state. I ques- tioned the editor about the deci- sion to run such an article and he replied that "many of the ar- ticles the paper runs are submit- ted pieces from organizers of events"…or words to that effect. When I read the article and realized that it was not factual, that it was greatly biased and slanted in favor of the separa- tion of the state, I contacted the famous Gallagher husband and wife team because they have been in the forefront of debunk- ing the separation proposal for over the past year via the "Keep It California" movement. They re- plied they were properly incensed and had fired off a letter to the editor. Said editor has assured me that he will publish their re- buttal as received. This is encouraging because editorializing in a newspaper is historically confined to the edi- torial page, and all other mate- rial (except paid advertising) is assumed to be free of bias and as factual as the paper can as- certain. True, newspapers have owners and publishers who show their political colors from time to time, but readers should reason- ably believe what they are read- ing is the unvarnished truth. If there is a backlog of letters to the editor, and you have not had the opportunity to read the Gallagher letter, I will include it in my next effort, but I hope you do because it tells it like it is: Sep- aration of the state would not be good for your health. ••• One thing about the question- able line up of Presidential candi- dates, they make no bones about their position on certain mat- ters of national interest such as abortion, funding for Planned Parenthood and immigration, which means voters, armed with their own phobias and preju- dices, should easily determine for whom to vote. That doesn't mean each candidate will get his or her way if elected, for with our sys- tem of checks and balances Con- gress will often stand in the way of Presidential dictum. ••• It seems unsporting to chal- lenge the Rev. Jim Wilson in his first God Talk column of the year, but his remarks often provoke re- sponse from this space. He wrote, "January 22 is the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision of the United States Su- preme Court legalizing abortions under virtually all conditions; it occasions the greatest shedding of innocent blood in American history." Well, there must be a couple of other "sheddings of innocent blood" in the history of the U.S. to be acknowledged as contender for the title of "the greatest," for which even a repenting minister cannot absolve. ••• People of my age have lived most of their lives under the spell of one British monarch. They may live elsewhere in the world, but they have learned that Eng- land is a closed shop, that it is led by inheritance and succession to the throne. That singular mon- arch is Queen Elizabeth II. She was born Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, 21 April 1926 and ascended the throne in 1952 becoming Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zea- land, and Head of the Common- wealth. This we know, but what we don't know is who will succeed her and if the successor will gov- ern wisely with approval of the British people. A new play In New York is titled "King Charles III." The main character is played by Tim Piggott-Smith and when asked if Prince Charles, the pres- ent monarch in waiting, has seen the show, he replied, "No, but we did hear from a palace spy that Charles does not wear his wedding ring." Smith had met the Prince once before, and during a break in the conversa- tion, Charles leaned over and in- quired, "Any work about?" At least the idle chap has a good sense of humor. Speaking of monarchs, have you noticed they are seldom bad mouthed, whereas our Presi- dents have been ridiculed and slandered daily for hundreds of years? Perhaps we should con- sider having a King or Queen as titular head of our great country, and let congress get the blame for failure to lead us down the path of righteousness. ••• The Redding Record-Search- light reported recently that a man indiscriminately firing a gun in a Redding apartment complex while yelling about Pres- ident Obama was shot and killed by police. Such killings, in retro- spect, always appear unfortunate and unnecessary. The proper way to protest the actions of our President is via placard or letters to the editor, or an even more effective way would be for a person to have his own weekly column in which to berate Obama and his life- style. D. Polson's on Tuesdays in the DN comes to mind. This lat- ter method may go unheeded, of course, but it is at least worth a try and no animals will be harmed in the process. ••• Here's a guy joke but I think it easily understood by both sexes. I was thinking about the age old question is it more pain- ful giving birth than to getting kicked in the groin? After giving it much thought, this is my conclusion: It is more painful to receive the latter than the former. Here is my reasoning: A year or so after giving birth, a woman will often say, "It might be nice to have another child." However, you never hear a guy say, "You know, I think I would like an- other kick in the groin." Robert Minch is a lifelong resident of Red Bluff, former columnist for the Corning Daily Observer and Meat Industry magazine and author of the "The Knocking Pen." He can be reached at rminchandmurray@ hotmail.com. I say Daily News article was biased toward division of the state Democratic politics is always and everywhere a transactional business. Promises are made to secure permission to wield power: If we support you, will you pursue policies we prefer? Vote for me and I will deliver this benefit for you. Sounding off A look at what readers are saying in comments on our website and on social media. I think this is a waste of time and money. I am thinking it will be made legal in the next few years anyway. Dorothy L. Kersey: On Red Bluff passing a ban on marijuana cultivation, delivery, dispensaries Instead of worrying about marijuana worry about the stuff that's turning people into zombies on the streets. Heroine, meth, LSD, bath salts, Molly, Special K, and the worst of it all RX drugs. Perhaps they should worry more about that than harmless marijuana. Jessica Clark: On Red Bluff passing a ban on marijuana cultivation, delivery, dispensaries George Will Robert Minch OPINION » redbluffdailynews.com Friday, January 8, 2016 » MORE AT FACEBOOK.COM/RBDAILYNEWS AND TWITTER.COM/REDBLUFFNEWS A4