Tom "Hammer" DeLay nails this one

[Texsox]

DeLay Rails Against Democrats in a Letter

Oct 27 3:40 PM US/Eastern

Email this story 

 

By WENDY BENJAMINSON

Associated Press Writer

 

HOUSTON

 

Rep. Tom DeLay, under indictment on campaign finance violations, railed against Democrats in a letter Thursday, accusing them of engaging in "the politics of personal destruction."

 

The letter, sent to constituents and contributors, connected his case with investigations into possible misconduct by White House adviser Karl Rove and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

 

"What we're fighting is so much larger than a single court case or a single district attorney in Travis County," the Texas Republican wrote. "We are witnessing the criminalization of conservative politics."

 

DeLay stepped down as House majority leader after he was indicted Sept. 28 on charges he illegally funneled corporate campaign contributions to candidates for the Texas Legislature.

 

DeLay has launched an aggressive defense, seeking to have the judge removed because of his Democratic political activity and accusing the Democratic district attorney who charged him, Ronnie Earle, of pursuing the case for political reasons.

 

The letter was prepared for the Republican Party newsletter in DeLay's home county of Fort Bend. Party chairman Eric Thode said he also e- mailed it to about 2,000 Fort Bend County households and to state and national elected and party officials.

 

He should be judged by his peers, other conservative, white, republicans, from Texas. Get all these Dems out of the process, they are biased.

[Rex Kickass]

That's funny. Thought you were serious for a while. The criminalization of politics happened when politicians openly started flouting the law.

[FlaSoxxJim]

That's funny. Thought you were serious for a while. The criminalization of politics happened when politicians openly started flouting the law.

^^^^^

[Balta1701]

So, when Earle spent his days indicting Democratic politicians, was that the criminalilzation of Progressive Politics?

[kapkomet]

So, when Earle spent his days indicting Democratic politicians, was that the criminalilzation of Progressive Politics?

Do you know the history of who he indicted? You have to remember that Texas was almost ALL Democratic until the early 90's. And the indictments were generally those "conservative" Democrats.

[KipWellsFan]

Do you know the history of who he indicted?  You have to remember that Texas was almost ALL Democratic until the early 90's.  And the indictments were generally those "conservative" Democrats.

 

If Ronnie Earle is biased against anything it's corporate influence in politics, and isn't this what so many of us, left and right hate about politics? The criminalization of politics argument is simply a talking point the public won't fall for. Only the staunchest of supporters and elitist politicians who think they are above the regular person are going to seriously believe this argument.

[kapkomet]

I don't disagree with you there, Kip.

 

But as long as "big corporations" exist, they will get the politicians ears because that's where most of the money is coming from. And yes, they all, DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN, shift the money like a shell game to keep from getting caught with their fingers in the cookie jar.

[Balta1701]

So just out of curiosity...when Tom Delay launches a verbal attack on Ronnie Earle for engaging in "The politics of personal destruction", is he not at the same time engaging in "The politics of personal destruction" except directed at Earle instead of himself?

[Texsox]

I don't disagree with you there, Kip.

 

But as long as "big corporations" exist, they will get the politicians ears because that's where most of the money is coming from.  And yes, they all, DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN, shift the money like a shell game to keep from getting caught with their fingers in the cookie jar.

 

Big corporations also pay a lot in taxes, employ a lot of voters, and yes, donate to campaigns.

[Rex Kickass]

They also have more say in what politicians do than the citizens who can actually vote. That's not a good thing.

[Texsox]

They also have more say in what politicians do than the citizens who can actually vote. That's not a good thing.

 

Respectfully, Mr. Kickass, it is neither good nor bad. It just is. Corporations are people too.

[KipWellsFan]

Respectfully, Mr. Kickass, it is neither good nor bad. It just is. Corporations are people too.

 

By Definition.

[Rex Kickass]

Corporations are people too.

 

No they aren't.

[Texsox]

No they aren't.

 

Corporations are made up of people. My point is corporations are not angels or devils by definition. Just like some here respect the efforts of the NRA, PTA, AARP, Sierra Club, etc. in advancing issues and having an impact, so do corporations. Just because it is a 10,000 employee corporation calling their congressman and not a friendly faced not for profit, doesn't make it bad.

 

I want the major employers picking up the phone and letting the government know what is effecting their business. I want healthy businesses in my town. In the Rio Grande Valley there are at least eight economic development agencies handing out incentives for businesses to move to the area. Yes, my tax dollars are being spent to steal employers from your neighborhood and moving them here. Shouldn't my elected officials continue to talk with those businesses after they are here?

 

Like it or not, most people here need jobs and many work for corporations. I would want the ownership of my employer being on a first name basis with my congressman to keep him aware of legislation that could negatively impact my job.

[Balta1701]

No they aren't.

Prior to the late 1880's, you would actually have been correct. There was no concept of "Free Speech" or anything like that when it came to corporations. Corporations were viewed as existing to serve the good of the people, not the good of themselves. When corporations did something wrong...they weren't fined...they were simply killed off - their charter was revoked. Unions, for example, are not considered peopel under the law.

 

The coup de grace came in 1978. This article is a brief retelling of the story. I'll excerpt this important part.

 

In the 1978 Boston v. Bellotti decision, the Court agreed, by a one vote majority, that corporations were "persons" and thus entitled to the free speech right to give huge quantities of money to political causes. Chief Justice Rehnquist, believing this to be an error, argued that corporations should be restrained from political activity and wrote the dissent.

 

He started out his dissent by pointing to the 1886 Santa Clara headnote and implicitly criticizing its interpretation over the years, saying, "This Court decided at an early date, with neither argument nor discussion, that a business corporation is a 'person' entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396 (1886). ..."

 

Then he went all the way back to the time of James Monroe's presidency to re-describe how the Founders and the Supreme Court's then-Chief Justice John Marshall, a strong Federalist appointed by outgoing President John Adams in 1800, viewed corporations. Rehnquist wrote:

 

"Early in our history, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall described the status of a corporation in the eyes of federal law:

 

"'A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created.'..."

 

Rehnquist concluded his dissent by asserting that it was entirely correct that states have the power to limit a corporation's ability to spend money to influence elections (after all, they can't vote – what are they doing in politics?), saying:

 

"The free flow of information is in no way diminished by the [Massachusetts] Commonwealth's decision to permit the operation of business corporations with limited rights of political expression. All natural persons, who owe their existence to a higher sovereign than the Commonwealth, remain as free as before to engage in political activity."

Rehnquist was, sadly, in the minority on that case.