This morning Adam Cohen of the New York Times  takes up the cause of Paul Minor, a Democrat and trial lawyer now serving after being prosecuted, twice, by the Bush Administration Justice Department.  A mistrial did not deter the Department, which eventually secured a conviction against Minor for, among other charges, corruptly guaranteeing loans obtained by Mississippi state judges for their re-election campaigns. Minor is in prison, and Cohen believes, as do others, that “Mr. Minor’s political activity may have cost him dearly.”  Minor is not the only one on the receiving end of allegedly political prosecutions: similar fates have befallen, on similarly dubious grounds, former Governor Siegelman of Alabama and an official in the Administration of Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, Georgia Thompson, whose conviction was overturned on appeal.

   The questions raised about the political objectives and conduct of Departmental prosecutions are serious, demanding the attention—serious and not only passing attention, one hopes-- that Congressional leaders have pledged to give them  Cohen is also convinced that in the Minor case, other more systemic problems created the conditions for the perversion of justice: “loose campaign finance laws”.

  Cohen writes:

It[the loose law] creates an ideal climate for partisan selective prosecution.  Since everyone is making contributions and nurturing friendships that look questionable, a prosecutor can haul any lawyer and judge he doesn’t like before a grand jury and charge corruption.

   Something seem quite wrong with this reasoning. Lax laws would seem just as conducive to quiescence—to a willingness to let things go—as to any craving for prosecutions.  It is when political practice comes to “look questionable”, that laws are passed, and it is at that point that, freshly armed with the new rules and regulations and public applause for their use, “a prosecutor can haul any lawyer and judge he doesn’t like before a grand jury and charge corruption.”  Heavy regulation, thriving on public mistrust, is the principal cause of this “ideal climate: for using law to tarnish and, not infrequently to destroy, political adversaries.

   Consider the cases in question, all three of them: Siegelman, Thompson, Minor. Adam Cohen cares; others care.  By and large those who care are friendly to Democrats or hostile to this Administration.  The numbers of those who are interested are limited. The public at large will never be convinced to take any such interest in these cases, to make of them a true cause: not even the residents of  the states where the accused elected officials served and are well known.  No one need look far for the reasons for the indifference. It is this: observers without a partisan or ideological predisposition or investment are conditioned to believe that this corruption is everywhere to be found and, on balance, quite properly punished.

    By now it should be obvious that the imposition of extensive regulatory limits does not limit the expansion or the aggressive use of  the criminal law by prosecutors and their superiors who appreciate how readily the press and the public accept the bona fides of any “public corruption” prosecution.  We can hopes for checks on political abuse, but the “climate” does not favor them.  We can imagine that these abuses travel with this Administration and will end when it does, but history does not smile on this hope.

   Adam Cohen is right to worry about the corruption in the system that will not be eased or eliminated if we are somehow able to get rid of bad people.  He just picked the wrong “system” out of the lineup and is letting one of the real culprits get off.

Bob Bauer