Last week, following Jim Black’s[1] guilty plea to federal bribery charges (snappily described in the statute as “accepting things of value in connection with the business of a state government receiving federal funds”) his lawyer told the press that they shouldn’t expect any more charges or pleas, in effect saying that Mr. Black had just pled guilty to the only crime he had ever committed.It was an incredible statement when made[2] and was proved wrong yesterday when Black pleaded guilty to state charges for paying the serendipitously-named Michael Decker $50,000 to switch party allegiance immediately following the 2002 election so Black could retain the speakership, a deal that was stunningly crooked even without the cash bribe.
Riding a tide of evangelical Republicanism in 2002, the Republicans won a paper thin two-seat majority in the North Carolina House and were anticipating taking control. Black approached Decker[3] and convinced him to switch parties, creating a 60-60 tie in the House. In exchange for this shell-game trick on the voters from Decker’s district in
It surprised no one to discover that such a crooked idea had a cash component, or that the players were capable of bribing and being bribed. Corruption investigators eventually discovered that in addition to the co-speakership and the pleasure of doling out important appointments to his friends, Decker wanted $50,000 and a job for his son. Black had both on hand and gave them easily. The $50,000 was itself obtained illegally—Black’s optometrist pals had given him checks with the payee blank so that he could direct the money as he saw fit. Decker pleaded guilty last year to federal and state corruption charges for taking the money from Black.
It was therefore hardly surprising that Black had to stand at a defendant’s table once again, lawyer at his side, and plead guilty to state charges arising out of his transaction with Decker. Ever claiming that Black would not have to do so was fanciful and silly, but I think lawyers sometimes just get in the habit of saying a particular thing as though they mean it, and then when it’s no longer appropriate to repeat it, they have a hard time switching gears. A kind of Pavlovian response, only the stimulus isn't a bell but a question: "Just how guilty is your client?"and the dog is wearing a pin-striped suit.
Everyone’s saying that Black is going to do jail time for this. I hope so. Democracy is a good thing, overall, and bending it to the will of whoever offers cash makes it morally no more defensible and much less predictable than the oligarchies, monarchies, dictatorships and theocracies with which it competes in the contest of how we'll govern our territory. Perhaps complete fairness in our legislatures is an ideal we can never actually attain, but it should remain our ideal, and those who corrupt it should be punished harshly and publicly, both to demonstrate to the voting, governed public that corruption is not tolerated, and to discourage legislators from such conduct in the future.
I’m sure Mr. Black will try to trade all of the dirt he knows for the most lenient sentencing possible, but now two judges will have a crack at sentencing him. I think schaedenfreude is unattractive and unappealing. This isn’t about enjoying the fall of the powerful and arrogant, it’s about vindicating the disenfranchised. When Jim Black began selling his vote to the highest bidder and suborning will of the electorate of
[1] For those of you outside
[2] “Incredible” in the sense that it lacked any credibility whatsoever.
[3] There have been lots of Black & Decker headlines. James,
Posts
