It's not about "winning the Election, it's about "winning" the Electoral College Congress Certifies

We can vote until the cows come home but the Electoral College makes sure the candidate with the most votes loses.



It's the Electoral College. 

#Stupid

"Republicans think President Obama should only get 3/5ths of his term". #SCOTUS #BlackHistoryMonth2016

There is a mean spirit on the loose.  Remember when Alabama State Senator Hank Sanders (D.Selma) said those powerful, provocative words, and was accused of "race baiting".... among other things?  Well, can you hear him now?

The message is clear: Making America Great Again means purging everyone who isn’t white and Christian.

There can be no more pretenses.  The mean spirit is manifested in Voter ID laws, Republican Gerrymandering, and Citizens United.  

The only thing "unprecedented" about this Supreme Court vacancy is the race of the President who gets to fill it. We see you, Republicans. Elections have consequences.

RedEYE

#BlackHistoryMonth2016

Updated~ You get who/what you vote for. The misinformed and the uniformed "win" again

BREAKING: Tea Partier Wins KY Gov Race After Promising To Take Healthcare From 400,000 in KY https://t.co/6V1rkVjVP8 pic.twitter.com/D3JpXjURR0

— The Baxter Bean (@TheBaxterBean) November 4, 2015

EYE HOPE you are happy now.

EYE have to give credit where credit is due, low information voters will turn out and vote.  EYE wish someone would figure out a way to suppress their vote.  Thanks to their willful ignorance we can't even vote them out.  Strike that ,we can vote them out if white democrats/progressives ,or whatever they want to call themselves these days, would get off their Donkey's and VOTE.

That said, Democrats must have someone to get off their Donkey's to vote FOR.  In some cases republicans are running unopposed. What does that tell you about the sorry state of affairs when the party that is anti minority, anti choice/women, anti labor, anti public education, anti LBGT, pro war, and debt as far as they can see has a full slate of proud candidates, and the party that is supposed to be for the little guys and gals have none?  What is wrong with this picture when democrats are ashamed/afraid to be called liberal/progressive, and bend over backwards to be conservative?

It used to be the job of the media to inform the public so we could make informed decisions.  Now it's the job of the media to misinform the uniformed, which enabled the gerrymandering, voter suppression, and dark money, creating this situation where we can't even vote them out of office.

EYE sure do miss the good old days when the the candidate with the most votes won instead of the candidate with the most money to use the public airways to keep misinformed uninformed.

Let America Be America Again.

Personal Note on BLM and Bernie Sanders

I've been quiet, quiet for a reason. I have been trying to listen to this commentary on Bernie and BLM. So, I thought I would at least check in. 

I'm a Bernie supporter, and have been to see him in person at Madison and Dubuque. And, yes, the crowds are predominately white, despite the notable exception of a white woman in Dubuque who sported a "Black Lives Matter" t-shirt and introduced herself as a member of the Dubuque NAACP.  At those two rallies, the demographics and the season could explain the crowd's whiteness.

The black population in Madison is 7.3%  The Madison rally, which drew 10,000, happened before school started, so many students would not have attended the rally. That said, the number of African-American students at UW-Madison is only 2.9%, or 1,235 students.

Dubuque is a much smaller community than Madison, roughly only 25% as large, and its black population is only 4.0%. The rally itself was much smaller, too, with less than 2,000 people attending.

Income and wealth inequality is an important part of Bernie's proposals, and he notes that it is an important aspect of racial justice, too. He breaks his racial justice proposals into four violence categories: physical, political, legal, and economic, and as he writes about them, you can see how closely linked he recognizes them to be.

As more people learn about Bernie, an aspect that will be raised is: "How is he going to pay for all this?" Fortunately, his senatorial committee memberships on Budget, Joint Economic, Environment and Public Works, Energy and Natural Resources, Veterans Affairs, and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions position him well to make informed decisions about changes that will have huge, dynamic impacts on our economy and nation.

Bernie knows where to cut and where to tax to pay for his visionary changes, like free public college tuition, by imposing a small tax on Wall Street transactions.

Here's another example of the far-reaching change that Sanders envisions: worker co-ops.

"We need to develop new economic models to increase job creation and productivity. Instead of giving huge tax breaks to corporations which ship our jobs to China and other low-wage countries, we need to provide assistance to workers who want to purchase their own businesses by establishing worker-owned cooperatives. Studay after study shows that when workers have an ownership stake in the businesses they work for, productivity goes up, absenteeism goes down and employees are much more satisfied with their jobs."

And as banking and corporate systems have failed to meet the needs of the American economy and its workers, this one change could have a huge impact in bettering the lives of working Americans. It is literally people joining together to take control of their working lives and incomes.

One of Bernie's themes is "We Stand Together" (perhaps drawn from Nickelback) and indeed it is around that theme that he delivered these lines in Portland.

13. "If a bank is too big to fail, I think it's too big to exist."

12. "We must end the embarrassment of this country being the only country on earth that does not guarantee workers paid medical and family leave."

11. "We see kids getting criminal records for having marijuana, but the CEOs of these large institutions get away with theft."

10. On the Koch brothers: "When you have one family spending more than either political party, that is not democracy, that is oligarchy, and that has got to end."

9. On Republicans: "What they mean by family values is that our gay brothers and sisters should not be able to marry and enjoy all the benefits of citizenship. I disagree."

8. "Men, stand with the women and demand pay equity. There is no defensible reason why women are making 78 cents on the dollar. That has got to change."

7. On attendance: "Portland, you have done it better than anyone else."

6. "A minimum wage of $7 an hour is a starvation wage. I applaud those cities - Seattle, Los Angeles and others - that have raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour. And that is exactly what we will do at the federal level."

5. On the very rich: "The have unlimited sums of money. But we have something they do not have. We have a united people."

4. "Every public college and university in America will be tuition-free."

3.  "The cost of war is real, and it is terrible. I believe that war should be the last resort, not the first resort."

2. On his Supreme Court nominees: "They will have to tell the American people that their first order of business will be to overturn Citizens United."

1. "This campaign is sending a message to the billionaire class: Yes, we have the guts to take you on."

"Dream big!" Sanders bellows in rallies (though he was hoarse in Dubuque), and that is part of his rallying cry as he kick starts our peaceful political revolution.

Bernie Sanders: On the 50th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wrote this to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. In it, Bernie identifies how voting rights are being systematically stripped from Americans, jeopardizing the very foundation of our democracy. But that is not all. He also denounces the legalized bribery resulting from the Citizens United ruling. Bernie does not stop there; he outlines his proposals for restoring voting rights to all.

Bernie wrote:  

Thursday, August 6 marks the 50-year anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This landmark piece of legislation was a milestone in the fight for civil rights and a great step forward in the advancement of our democracy. This important and popular law passed the House and Senate with the support of large majorities from both parties.

Unfortunately, some people would rather increase the power of the privileged few than defend voting rights. Right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have been promoting legislative proposals which make it harder for minorities to register and vote. Sadly, those proposals have had some success at the state level.

Then there’s the Supreme Court. The Court’s conservative majority struck a blow against democracy in 2010 with its Citizens United decision. In 2013 it struck another blow, when it overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. That made it very difficult to step in and enforce voters’ rights under the Act.

It is an embarrassment that the Republican-led Congress, in order to preserve its majorities, has refused to consider legislation to repair that damage to the Voting Rights Act and will not act to fix our broken voting system.

We are facing a two-pronged attack on our democracy — unlimited money poured into the political process, paired with the systematic suppression of the vote.

These are two sides of the same coin.

Make no mistake: the billionaire class does not want Americans to vote. Billions of dollars are being funneled into our elections in a form of legalized bribery, even as American voters — especially minority voters — are being discouraged from voting. It is no wonder that government no longer works for ordinary Americans.

There is much more we must do to protect minority voters. In the shameful days of open segregation, “literacy” laws were used to suppress minority voting. Today, through other laws and actions — such as requiring voters to show photo ID, discriminatory drawing of Congressional districts, not allowing early registration or voting, and purging voter rolls — states are taking steps which have a similar effect.

The patterns are unmistakable. An MIT paper found that, nationally, African Americans waited twice as long to vote as whites. Wait times of as long as six or seven hours have been reported in some minority precincts, especially in “swing” states like Ohio and Florida.

This should offend the conscience of every American.

The fight for minority voting rights is a fight for justice. It is also inseparable from the struggle for democracy itself. When the votes of minorities are suppressed, it becomes easier for politicians who represent billionaires and corporations to win and hold elected office.

What can we do? Congress must restore the Voting Rights Act’s “pre-clearance” provision, which extended protections to minority voters in states where they were clearly needed. Then we must expand the Act’s scope so that every American, regardless of skin color or national origin, is able to vote freely.

I have introduced legislation to make Election Day a national holiday, but that’s just a start. We must make early voting an option for voters who work or study and need the flexibility to vote on evenings or weekends. We must make no-fault absentee ballots an option for all Americans.

Every American over 18 must be registered to vote automatically, so that students and working people can make their voices heard at the ballot box. We must put an end to discriminatory laws and the purging of minority-community names from voting rolls.

We need to make sure that there are sufficient polling places and poll workers to prevent long lines from forming at the polls anywhere. We need to fight dishonest practices that keep people from voting through deception or fear. We need to restore voting rights to people who have served their debt to society.

We must repeal Citizens United and take the political process back from the billionaire class. We must restore the Voting Rights Act and protect voters from attempts to disenfranchise them before the elections take place.

Above all, we need to remember the price that was paid for the right to vote. The Voting Rights Act was one of the great victories of the civil rights movement. Now, as then, change comes when the people demand it — in the voting booth, and on the streets in peaceful demonstrations. We must remind ourselves of what’s been achieved in the past, and resolve to do equally great things in the future.

We must remember that the struggle for our rights is not the struggle of a day, or a year, or a generation. It is the struggle of a lifetime, and one that must be fought by every generation. Our time to fight is now.

This is the reason "the mid term elections didn't turn out like you would have liked for them to turn out" Mr. President Obama Sir

Hey, @chucktodd, you missed the story. Again. I fixed your monitor headline.  You're welcome. #MTP pic.twitter.com/Rl7Z5BZDv6
— Steve Marmel (@Marmel) November 16, 2014

The Game is rigged.  Between Voter Suppression, gerrymandering, and Citizens United ,Democrats will never "win" an election in the United States of the America.

I sure do miss the good old days when we had freedom and democracy, and  fair and free elections in America too.

 

Playing Politics with Suckers Lives Day 2

I understand that Teapublitarian voters are a bunch of mindless rubes, but does Eric Cantor think the rest of America is just as stupid?


Mission Accomplished:  The Tea Party Shutdown of the government continues.

WASHINGTON — The Tea Party Republicans should hang a “Mission Accomplished” banner across the House of Representatives. They could flank it with large portraits of Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican who has in fact, if not in name, replaced John Boehner as Speaker of the House. The right-wing extremists got exactly what they wanted. Now, what will the country do about it?

The Real Story of the GOP Shutdown:  50 Years of GOP Race Baiting:

On the day the Affordable Care Act takes effect, the U.S. government is shut down, and it may be permanently broken. You’ll read lots of explanations for the dysfunction, but the simple truth is this: It’s the culmination of 50 years of evolving yet consistent Republican strategy to depict government as the enemy, an oppressor that works primarily as the protector of and provider for African-Americans, to the detriment of everyone else. The fact that everything came apart under our first African-American president wasn’t an accident, it was probably inevitable.

Hostage Taking is All They Have

"In a democracy, hostage tactics are the last resort for those who can’t otherwise win their fights through elections, can’t win their fights in Congress, can’t win their fights for the Presidency, and can’t win their fights in Courts," Warren said. "For this right-wing minority, hostage-taking is all they have left – a last gasp of those who cannot cope with the realities of our democracy."

The GOP Takes It's Clothes Off in Public:  It's Not a Pretty Sight, Even For Some Republicans

And so, the "moderate" (ho, ho, ho) House Republicans tell us that what they are afraid of is primary challenges from the "Tea Party" should they vote for rationality on the continuing resolution matter and then on the perhaps more important debt ceiling increase that is just around the corner. Well yes, many of them would face such challenges, but the overall national leadership of the GOP is just as afraid of them as any individual House member is. For in the highly gerrymandered districts inhabited by so many Republicans in the House, many of those challenges would be effective. But then, in the general election, given decent Democratic candidates with some money from the DNC, even in gerrymandered districts, as happened in a few elections in 2010 and 2012, the far-rightists might be so far-right, that Democrats might be able to take over the House. To say nothing of what it might do to GOP chances in the state–wide elections for Governor and Senator. Then there's Ted Cruz and 2016. A big OY! on that one.

 That Thing about Congress Being "Exempted from ObamaCare?  A Huge Whopper

You might’ve heard just about every Republican member of Congress, along with Fox News and AM talk radio, shrieking about how President Obama has “exempted” Congress from Obamacare. The point they’re trying to make is that Obamacare is so awful and so ridiculous that the Obama administration has offered Congress a Get-Out-Of-Obamacare-Free card. Taking it one step further, they’re insisting that if Obamacare isn’t good enough for Congress, why should the American people be forced to endure its awfulness? The people should be exempted, too, which means the elimination of the individual mandate, and, without the mandate (a Republican idea by the way), premiums would skyrocket and the law would explode. Political sabotage, pure and simple.

Radical GOP House Made Safe by Gerrymandering:  

Bad politicians were sent to Washington by Citizens United, Gerrymandering, and Voter Suppression.

But let’s not forget who draws the lines for redistricting—state lawmakers (and in a few states, commissions appointed by the states). These legislators are often chosen in midterm and off-year elections in which the composition of the electorate has tended to be older and whiter than in presidential election years. That helps explain why the Democrats took a beating in 2010. The lesson is that midterm elections can have big consequences. If Democrats ever want to win back the House, they have to get their people to the polls in the off years. And if the Supreme Court guts the Voting Rights Act, it will be more important than ever.

Field Negro ~ I know that most of you reading this haven't felt it yet, but my fear is that we will feel it in unspeakable ways down the line. Our national security is at stake. The safety of our air travel will be jeopardized and the lives of poor children will be disrupted.

Why don't they put this on TeeVee?

Terrifying when you think about it, isn't it?

No Justice in this political climate

I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one and/or incarcerates one for life.

I will believe the republicans are serious about finding so-called illegal immigrants when they start checking for papers at construction sights and lawn care businesses.

I will believe it's not voter suppression when there is some actual voter fraud.

I believe this is what happens when you have a politicized Supreme Court.

Ronald Reagan continues to haunt us from the grave

The same United States Supreme Court that gave us Bush v Gore, and Citizens United  now makes  racial profiling legal as the red state, republicans cheer, and is another reason to put Marco Rubio on the ticket with Mitt Romney.  Snark

The immediate result is that Arizona can continue to harass and detain Latinos even if it can't deport them unilaterally. Naturally, there are limits imposed by the plain language of the bill, but proving that the effect of this section is to create unlawful racial harassment remains to be proven in court.
While that is being litigated, other red states can pass their own Latino harassment laws, and some may do so. This is bad news for Mitt Romney, who upheld the Arizona law as a model for the country.

Waiting for the next axe to fall....

"Wisconsin is proof we get the leadership we deserve"

With only 23% of the vote cast NBC news called the recount for Scott Walker. 

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barret conceded the race while people were still in line voting and got slapped up side the head for it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Of course you missed this if you weren't watching Way to Early with Willie Giest.

I don't care what anybody says, President Obama's Donkey is Grass.  He might as well start packing because the candidate with the most money to run 30 second television ads wins.

God Bless Citizens United!

I am more afraid of the TeaPublicans and  than I am of al- Qaeda #2.  Why are republicans so mean spirited?

Wisconsin is proof we get the leadership we deserve.

Today's Must Reads
The Wisconsin Microcosm
Media's Portrayal of Black Youths Contribute to Racial Tensions


Stay tuned for a Righteous RedEye Rant.

What I'm reading today about punks, biscuits, treason , dogs,and Tim Tebow

Questions for Republicans Others Are Too Punk to Ask because they are getting paid thanks to Citizens United.

Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit.  I can vote again!  If democrats aren't saying anything, nothing is what they'll hear. Hannah has a plan!

None Dare Call it Treason.  I refuse to believe the majority of the American Voters, not to be confused with the majority of the American people, are HATING  HATERS and the people who HATE  black/brown/poor folks more than they love their country.

Mitts Vick Problem Paging PETA!

Headgames ,President Obama (bi-racial black guy)= racist,  Ron Paul (white guy with dubious ties)=not racist, and The Road Not Taken.

Tim Tebow and the Denver Brocos;  What's Race Got to do With it?   What's that you say?  Some Christian Compassionate Conservative republicans are begging for Tebow's endorsement?  I'm shocked!  Shocked I tell you!

 Not.

Read on.  Read often.

EYE Want My Free Press Back

America’s first printing press was built by two English-born colonists who came to the colonies with a specific agenda in mind on 25 September 1639.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Regular readers know I started RedEye's FrontPage when I was banned from Left in Alabama, and, that I've asked for reinstatement to no avail. Well, one of my fellow liberal bloggers joined me in the banishment box when they were banned from another "progressive" blog last week because they posted a diary the "owners" didn't like, prompting them to ask "what kind of progressive blog is this?" Names redacted.

For the record, I agree with XXX that XXXXX XXX has the right to ban me or anyone else they so choose. Those of us on the outside have the right to ask: "What is this Web site really all about? Is it about progressive ideas or something else?'

And this:

Again, XXX has every right to do that, but I question what kind of agenda they really have. Questioning authority, and reporting on misconduct, are fundamentals of liberalism and an aggressive press--as I see it. If XXX does not support such activities, I don't think liberals should look to that site to spearhead any meaningful change that will benefit regular folks.

This Blogger believes Blog owners have the right to ban people, just like ESPN had the right to fire Hank Williams, Jr. after his comparison of President Obama to Hitler on Fox and Friends. I vehemently disagree with both premises. I believe to ban people because they express a point of view owners and editors don't agree with is a violation of the First Amendment. If you can lose your job, or be banned from publishing because of something you write, do you have freedom of speech? I submit the answer is NO.

This is how another fellow Blogger interprets the First Amendment

Freedom of the press belongs to the owner of the press. Don't ask me, ask the SCOTUS. I put it on my business card because a keyboard and a camera are my press.

Oh really? Think about that first sentence. Freedom of the press belongs to the owner of the press. Are owners of the press free to suppress the opinions of those who aren't owners? Are owners of the press the only ones with freedom of speech? I HOPE not.

As for asking SCOTUS, need I remind readers of the Citizens United Ruling?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. _ (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment protects corporate and union funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections. The 5–4 decision originated in a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act, in reference to its primary Senate sponsors.[2]

I guess it's hard for people who haven't had to fight for basic civil and human rights to understand what is at stake here, but this freedom of the press belongs to the owner of the press meme is beginning to sound like the private businesses don't have to serve blacks meme.

The press is not a private business.

Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials. While such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state, its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections.

I want my free press back.

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.~Justice Louis D. Brandeis

There is Quid Pro Quo for republicans, then there is Quid Pro Quo for Democrats

On the outside looking in. That's how I feel everything I log on to Left in Alabama. I really miss not being allowed to post there. For years it part of my morning Political Junkie routine...Washington Journal to hear what the people were talking about.....Morning Joke, I mean Joe, to see what the righty's were talking about....Left in Alabama to find out what was really going on in the world and doing my part in trying to make a difference. Was I outspoken and opinionated? You betcha. Could I give as good as I got? Absolutely. Did I talk about race and racism a lot. Yes. Did I resort to name calling, personal attacks and insults when the substance of my arguments failed? No. Did I go along to get along? Nope.

As a matter of fact, I'm still trying to figure out exactly who or what got me banished from Left in Alabama but I feel the same way now as I did when my beloved mother explained why my siblings and I couldn't drink from the white water fountain.

Anyhoo, enough of the pity party. Paging LiA's resident righty, I mean Legal contributor! Old Prosecutor, you said-if you tell a legislator that "I will contribute X amount of money to your campaign in return for you voting yes on a specific bill" - that can be construed as bribery.

I have a problem with your expert legal opinion which can be expressed in two words... Citizens United

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited—because of the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision, in favor of Citizens United, resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act.[2]
The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision upheld provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3]
The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.”[2] An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] McCain–Feingold had previously been weakened, without overruling McConnell, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007). The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.[5]

So, if corporations can make unlimited campaign contributions in the name of free speech, why can't people tell candidates they will vote for them if they share their interest? Certainly you don't believe corporations are donating million to candidates who don't share their interest?

What mooncat said

Let me relate to you an actual situation that happened last year. A member of Congress made a fundraising call to someone I know, obviously hoping for a contribution. The potential donor was very upfront that the health care reform bill was their top priority and said, "If you support this bill, call me again and I'll definitely support your campaign." Now, it's a federal campaign, so the amount is obviously limited to $2400 (or $4800 for primary & general) but it's pretty clearly a specific vote at issue.

I know the potential donor and the intent was not to bribe but to put pressure on a representative before an important vote and draw a bright line on a particular issue -- don't call me for money unless you vote for HCR.

By your standard, politicians are guilty of bribing voters when they say I will vote to repeal ObamaCare if you vote for me, and voters are guilty of bribing candidates/elected officials when they say I will vote for you if you vote to repeal ObamaCare.

Are campaign contributions only considered a bribe when it involves Democrats like former Alabama Don Siegelman

The question this case raises (as did the Siegelman case) is - when does a campaign contribution become a bribe?

However before we get to that, remember that Beason testifed (sic) he was offered a $1,000,000.00 per year "consulting" contract in return for his vote which, if true, would clearly be a bribe.

To the main question - most State (and the Federal) bribery statutes define bribery as offering a pecuniary benefit or a "thing of value" to a public official(sic) with the intent that the official's (sic) vote or action will be "corruptly" influemced (sic).

The line between campaign contribution and a bribe is a fine one. Generally to be a bribe, the government must prove a "quid pro quo" -that is the contribution must be given in exchange for a specific vote. Federal Courts have held that money "given freely without the promise of a specific action in return is not a bribe even if they are intended to "build a reservoir of goodwill that might ultimately affect one or more of a multitude of unspecified acts, now or in the future".

What was the crime in the Siegelman case?

I guess it depends on what the definition of Quid Pro Quo IS. There must be one definition for republicans and another one for democrats.

I look forward to your reply.