Convictions: Slate's blog on legal issues

John McCain's Democracy in America - The few, the wealthy, the well-connected

Once again, the Times is implicitly questioning Senator McCain's bona fides as a political reformer. Supposedly after his near-death ethics experience in the "Keating five" Savings and Loan scandal, the Senator has been careful to avoid according special privileges to the well-heeled.  There seem to have been exceptions, however, including a notable one for well-heeled "friend" who has also arranged for donations to Senator McCain's presidential campaign in excess of $250,000.

Today's profile by David Kirkpatrick and Jim Rutenberg of wealthy Arizona real estate developer Donald R. Diamond reveals that Senator McCain has been pivotal to Mr. Diamond's real estate success, much of it achieved by exchanging properties with the United States on very favorable terms. 

It appears Senator McCain helped Mr. Diamond acquire, among other properties, Fort Ord, the former military base in the extraordinarily beautiful Monterey California.  When the deal ran into trouble, Senator McCain assigned an aide who facilitated matters with the Pentagon and sped things up.  Mr. Diamond described by Senator McCain as "a close personal friend" was of course grateful -- well, to a point. 

Referring to the help he received from Senator McCain and about which he bragged to local officials would allow them to "get through some of the red tape in dealing with the Army," Mr. Diamond felt more or less entitled.  In a startling, yet revealing, comment Mr. Diamond contended  "I think that is what Congress people are supposed to do for constituents. When you have a big, significant businessman like myself, why wouldn't you want to help move things along?  What else would they do?  They waste so much time with legislation."

In the various endorsements of Mr. Diamond used to intervene with other government officials, John McCain calls his friend -- and it would seem modern-day commentator on American democracy -- "a citizen's, citizen" -- yeah, he's a veritable Alexis de Tocqueville. 

So here's hoping that Pennsylvania will not be afraid to nominate someone for president of the United States who at least promises with some plausibility to roil the existing order that passes itself off as congressional ethics.

NYT? What's Bush's Excuse for Keeping Law Violations Secret?

Eric writes, "The question was whether The Times went about making its decision [to reveal the Bush administration's violations of FISA] in a responsible way."  Marty and David's responses (citing Eric Lichtblau's column) have devastated any suggestion to the contrary (at least to my satisfaction; Eric P. seems unconvinced).  I see little to add to their very strong posts on that question. 

But I think we do have to name the even more fundamental question:  whether the Bush administration itself acted responsibly in keeping secret that same story.  What was its legitimate justification in the first place for misleading the NYT into keeping that information secret for more than a year? 

I'm afraid we are growing immune to just how outrageous and destructive it is, in a democracy, for the President to violate federal statutes in secret.  Remember that much of what we know about the Bush administration's violations of statutes (and yes, I realize they claim not to be violating statutes) came first only because of leaks and news coverage.  Incredibly, we still don't know the full extent of our government's illegal surveillance or illegal interrogations (and who knows what else)-despite Congress's failed efforts to get to the bottom of it.  Congress instead resorted to enacting new legislation on both issues largely in the dark.  Whether a President ever may legitimately act contrary to a statute is itself a controversial question.  I believe the answer is yes, in extremely rare and limited circumstances (circumstances that clearly were not satisfied in the FISA or torture controversies).  But how can it be faithful to our system of government for the President to act contrary to federal statutes in secret?!