According to WTOL:
TOLEDO -- Tom Noe, the prominent GOP fundraiser at the center of an Ohio political scandal, will spend 27 months in federal prison for arranging a contribution scheme to raise money for the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign in 2004. Federal judge David Katz sentenced Noe in a federal courtroom in Toledo Tuesday afternoon to 27 months on each of 3 counts, and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. Katz also imposed a $136,200 fine.
Federal prosecutors had asked that Noe get 5 years in prison, because they say he has made other illegal contributions to candidates in Ohio. Noe's attorney argued he should receive only community service, because he says Noe has been publicly humiliated and probation and community service are a more appropriate punishment.
Noe still faces other charges in Lucas County that he will go on trial in October for, yet I can't help feeling some of the same thoughts I had when Bob McCloskey was sentenced, ironically he was also given a 27 month sentence.
While I don't believe either man should have gotten a pass on what led to their convictions, I also believe if we don't change the system all we are doing is making a few examples here and there of those who get caught while the deeper issue of how this happened in the first place still exists.
Let's flash back thanks to this Washington Post article:
When four longtime supporters of George W. Bush in 1998 developed a name and a structure for the elite cadre that the then-Texas governor would rely on in his campaign for president, the goal was simple. They wanted to escape the restraints of the public financing system that Congress had hoped would mitigate the influence of money in electing a president. Their way to do it was to create a network of people who could get at least 100 friends, associates or employees to give the maximum individual donation allowed by law to a presidential candidate: $1,000.
The Pioneers have evolved from an initial group of family, friends and associates willing to bet on putting another Bush in the White House into an extraordinarily organized and disciplined machine. It is now twice as big as it was in 2000 and fueled by the desire of corporate CEOs, Wall Street financial leaders, Washington lobbyists and Republican officials to outdo each other in demonstrating their support for Bush and his administration's pro-business policies.
As long as this type of system still exists there are going to be future problems.
Keeping Your Belongings Safe Through Storms
-
Years ago almost every house was built with some sort of shutter, whether
designed as storm shutters or for security. Granted, most windows during
those d...
13 years ago
2 comments:
It would stop the need for so much money if the amount allowed to be spent on a campaign were limited rather than how much is raised.
When I ran for office last year Council at Large, I was told it would take $60,000. I spent a total of $9,000 and have signs to spare and literature. Even if I had spent another $50,000, I really don't believe I would have been elected... I came in 8th, 2500 votes short. I think quite a bit of money is unnecessarily spent on the campaigns.
We also need the news media to do better coverage... kill the sound bites... how about a station that really shows an entire debate not just the sound bite the select to make their point. In the paper, print the debate so we can read the candidates information not what the paper considers interesting. I was surprised when Kerry ran for office just how difficult it was to find full coverage of events not just sound bites and reporter's assessment of the information. If these events were televised and printed, we could make more intelligent decisions and not have to rely on expensive biased ads and candidates scrounging for money.
Karen,
You're correct, the sound bites can be very misleading, depending on the media outlets intent; debates and addresses should be shown/printed in their entirety.
Unfortunately, you are still contending with a short attention span voter…
In the end though, you’re still faced with a largely uncaring public; just look at the voter turnouts.
Maybe if we denied people the right to vote, they’d demand it back, and pay attention, although I doubt it.
Post a Comment