Plan B Forum

As briefly as I can put it, the Pennsylvania justice department launched a "sting" operation on a group of Philadelphia legislators in 2010, seeking to induce them to take cash bribes in exchange for legislative favors. Being conducted in Philadelphia, not surprisingly, all of the legislators were "Black," and all were democrats. It was a time when many PA legislators of both parties were under a microscope and several of them ended up tried, convicted, and sent to jail. Most of it was for using state employees for campaign activities and things of that nature.

The sting was a rousing success, and all five were recorded accepting cash bribes, varying in amount from $1,500 to about $5,000. The accompanying dialog was also described as colorful, indicating that such activities were as normal as lunch.

Our current Attorney General Kathleen Kane inherited the investigation, pondered it for a time, and recently decided that because the person wearing the wire was - shall we say - a scumbag who had been granted immunity for a huge number of fraud counts, she could not successfully mount a case, and the investigation was dropped. She also concluded that since all five of the legislators were "Black," the investigation was likely tainted by racism - or a jury would see it as such.

The Philadelphia Inquirer - largest newspaper in the state - wrote a story about the case implying that the decision to drop the case may not have been entirely on the merits.

Kane requested a meeting with the editorial board of the Inquirer, presumably to discuss the case. When she arrived, she was accompanied by "attack dog" litigator Richard Sprague (and his son) who, surprisingly, did all the talking. Indeed, Kane told the staff of the Inquirer that, on advice of counsel, she would not say anything (at the meeting she requested). Sprague threatened them with a libel suit. (He would be paid, according to Sprague "...out of her pocket"). Most of Sprague's comments were clearly intended to strike fear into the hearts of the Inquirer staff, and given his mountainous track record, they succeeded.

Not to cast aspersions, but Kane was elected largely on the basis of being a photogenic Democrat woman. Her conduct in office has been deplorable, in my opinion. For example, she refused to authorize an argument in Federal Court in support of the State's marriage law. I am not aware of any exceptions or exclusions to her oath of office that allow her to pick and choose which Pennsylvania laws to "uphold and defend."


She has been flirting with the Press and hinting that she is conducting a thorough investigation of Governor Corbett's conduct of the Jerry Sandusky case when he was AG, no doubt holding onto her slanderous accusations until the time when they will do the most harm to his re-election.

But getting back to the Sting, do you think you could convince a jury that these legislators accepted bribes when they did so ON TAPE? Several District attorneys in the state have delicately told journalists that at the very least the cases should have been brought to trial, with the existence of the tapes, regardless of the odiousness of the one wearing the wire.

What say y'all?

Our AG did the same thing in our voter approved marriage law -- refused to defend it in federal court, leaving no one with standing to defend the law duly adopted by the voters in 2004. While I would like to see the law overturned, it is a failure of duty to not defend the laws of a state. Obviously, our AG and the PA AG are doing so for political reasons. Sure, they will mouth that there is "no basis" to defend the law -- even though it is clear that at least 4 members of SCOTUS, and possibly a 5th one, will disagree with that assessment.

Worse, in our case, the voters appear ready and willing to undue the law they adopted 10 years ago (that's how much the tide has turned on same sex marriage), but the voters won't get the chance because the proposition supporters are dropping their measure since it costs money and effort to get it on the ballot and to educate/market voters. So what happens later if and when the SCOTUS says SSM is a state issue and does not violate the Constitution? A mess, which will all be due to the failure of the AG to do her job.

As to the bribery conviction, the investigators should have inoculated themselves from the obvious racism argument by trying to trap a spectrum of legislators (this would make the movie much more interesting too). Not having more information, it is hard to say if the case should be pursued. Ultimately, the voters get to decide. Hope its not a Marion Barry scenario.

I don't know about these particular cases, but I believe the AG of any state has to have the ability to exercise discretion in bringing or refusing to bring cases into the court. Indeed, because the resources available to the AG are limited, how could it be otherwise. I can easily see cases where an AG will choose not to bring a prosecution because the evidence was tainted (or a jury would not believe the key witness(es)). Likewise, I can see where it might make little sense to bring cases into the federal courts on the hopes that one USSC justice might change his or her mind when there are far more important things to litigate.

I haven't had time to follow the story closely (even though I get The Inquirer), but from what I can gather, the most significant problem with prosecution is that legislators' acceptance of cash gifts is not actually illegal under Pennsylvania law -- unless it can be directly tied to a quid pro quo legislative action, which in these cases is impossible to prove. When it comes to ethics rules and anti-corruption laws, Harrisburg makes Trenton look like a shining city on a hill.

Big RR wrote: Likewise, I can see where it might make little sense to bring cases into the federal courts on the hopes that one USSC justice might change his or her mind when there are far more important things to litigate.

Except this isn't what is happening. A special interest group has sued in federal court to overturn a duly approved law of the state. It is the AG's sworn duty to defend the state's laws in such cases -- no one else can do so. If there is no basis to defend the law, so be it. But in this case, there is abundant authority to defend the law and not a long shot to win the case. For the statute to be upheld does not require having a justice change his mind (Kennedy) as it would be consistent for Kennedy to rule that while it was a Constitutional violation to discriminate against state-approved SSM couples for federal benefits, it is up to states, as it has been for 250 years, to decide on who can be married ("the regulation of domestic relations has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States"). The excuse that the law has no chance of being upheld is a smoke screen for taking a completely political position (just like the Obama Administration did in Windsor, but at least there, it did not object to Congress's legal counsel defend the law).

Again, that is your take on the likelihood of mounting a viable defense; the AG could easily have assessed the case differently. I'm not saying the decision might not be politically motivated, but the AG of any state has broad discretion in how to commit the resources of the justice department in his or her state. Not every case will be brought to trial, and not every appeal/challenge will be opposed; there is no blanket requirement to bring any action (absent some sort of statutory requirement that I don't see here).

Sue U, I have read that the tapes make it clear there is a quid pro quo. The dirtbag is asking for specific action on a bill and the legislators agreed, on tape, to promote his interests.

Haven't seen the transcripts (don't think they have been published yet).

As a minor footnote, it now turns out that Kane actually signed the plea agreement granting immunity to the dirtbag. It is not contested that the state was compelled to make good on the agreement, which had been negotiated by a Corbett staffer earlier, but Kane is getting a little heat for signing it then not disclosing that fact.

Given her positions and actions in this whole sequence, I think she might have made a statement of protest before signing it, or done something else to go on record saying that she disagreed with the deal.