BAD IMAGE - https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5180/images/top-banner-2.gif (must exist and begin with http)
Under the 11th Circuit's ruling in "The Siegelman Case," President Obama and contributors who accept appointments could be indicted and convicted of bribery and extortion if President Obama knew at the time they made a contribution that the donor wanted the post to which the President later appointed them.
54 former Attorneys General, both Democrats and Republicans, said the 11th Circuit's ruling in the Siegelman case means "a prosecutor has the power to indict and convict any politician and any donor whenever a donation was made and the politician took action consistent with the donor's desire, while aware of said desire."
Here is why it is important to Members of the House and Senate:
What's at stake is whether an elected official can be prosecuted for doing something for a contributor. Sound crazy? It is! The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear in McCormick v. U.S. that it takes an actual explicit quid pro quo agreement before the line between politics and crime is crossed. However, in my case, the court said that juries may infer an agreement from the minds and actions of the elected official and the contributor, the opposite of explicit.
The 54 former State Attorneys General told the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Siegelman case: "Such an interpretation puts at risk every politician who accepts a campaign contribution." "...criminalizing activities that fall short of an explicit quid pro quo agreement, can only lead to an impermissible chilling effect on the First Amendment right to contribute to political campaigns."
It is important not only to my freedom but also to every elected official, including the President Obama, to get this First Amendment issue clarified.
As I raise money to pay for my $150,000 appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court I am asking you to continue the fight in Congress.
Thank you so much.
Governor of Alabama 1999-2003
|Paid for by Friends of Don Siegelman 2008|