House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., holds a news conference on the Stock Act outside of the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012.
Perhaps not so surprisingly, Washington politicians on both sides of the aisle are opposed to the recent change by Representative Eric Cantor (R–VA) and the House of Representatives in eliminating the so-called public corruption amendment that was proposed by Senators Patrick Leahy (D–VT) and John Cornyn (R–TX) and attached to the Senate-passed STOCK Act. The House version (which lacked the Leahy–Cornyn amendment) passed by a whopping 417–2 vote earlier today.
Cantor and the House deserve credit—not blame—for putting good policymaking ahead of their own potential electoral considerations. As The Heritage Foundation has chronicled, the Leahy–Cornyn Amendment attempts to kick to the curb two unanimous Supreme Court decisions regarding bribery and honest services fraud.
The Leahy–Cornyn Amendment would do the following:
- Extend federal jurisdiction to even minor state and local foot-fault violations of state or local reporting laws, some of which might lead to nothing more than an administrative penalty under state law.
- Federalize state and local election law and impose a potential penalty of 20 years in federal prison.
- Make a number of unjustified increases in available terms of imprisonment, which would include making some misdemeanor offenses into federal felonies punishable by up to three years in prison. These changes were proposed without any proffered justification by Congress that the existing sentences were insufficient to deter crime or adequately punish wrongdoers.
Despite proponents’ previous attempts to pass such legislation, many of the potential overcriminalizing effects of the amendment have not been fully examined by Congress. Instead, the Senate decided to attach this amendment—one that wasn’t getting traction on its own—to a popular bill that is in the news every day and that the public generally perceives as a good piece of legislation.
Such a tactic, although convenient for supporters, is a terrible way to change law that can significantly affect individual liberty. In response, the amendment’s proponents now want to demonize those who would dare to come out against something that they misleadingly tout as a good government measure.
It takes courage for politicians to take a stand for good policy when opponents smear them as being against good government. But the public corruption amendment was a wolf disguised in sheep’s clothing. Citizens should not be fooled into accepting policies that over-federalize and overcriminalize—even in the name of good government.
That was damn good law that would have deterred public corruption and only corrupt or wanna be corrupt public servants would have had a problem with it . The United States of America has fallen into a whole of corruption and the strongest law in the land should be to control corruption by public servants. This is a sorry story and a diservice to the American people who are repeatedly subjected to dishonest service by taxed paid public servants.
You and me should disagree on this, rebelready. The "United States" has no business telling me how to run my village, school district, city, county or state. The United States has enough trouble enforcing the multitude and endlessly increasing rules, laws and edicts already claimed in its juristiction.
What a silly article. I guess if you consider political corruption and bribery to be "individual liberty" this article has merit.
Every election cycle there are accusations of corruption. I have no doubt that there is some corruption and dishonesty in our election process and in government. However, believing that all politicians and governments are corrupt, as some do, is surrendering to forces of evil with cynicism and paranoia. Federal government should be limited and restricted from unduly interfering with local government and private activities except as specifically allowed in the U.S. constitution.