Checks, please!

The Tom DeLay/TRMPAC criminal trial is back in the news today as attorneys for DeLay associates Jim Ellis and John Colyandro are pursuing an appeal of their indictments.

Lawyers for two of former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's political associates asked an appeals court panel Tuesday to toss out their money-laundering indictments because the underlying election laws are too confusing.

"The law must be so clear that a person of ordinary intelligence" won't mistakenly run afoul of it, said Joseph Turner, who represents John Colyandro, executive director of a political action committee founded by DeLay.

[...]

A panel of three Republican judges on the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals heard the arguments. Colyandro and Ellis initially were indicted one year before DeLay was charged in the alleged conspiracy last September.

Ellis' attorney, J.D. Pauerstein, argued that the state's money-laundering statute in 2002 did not include transactions involving a personal or business check. The Legislature last year expanded the definition of "funds" to include checks and money orders.

Yes, this is the checks are not the same as cash argument that Judges Perkins and Priest refused to accept. I don't think the passage of time has made it any less ludicrous, but we'll see what the court says.

Pauerstein said laws prohibiting corporations or labor unions from donating to political campaigns but allowing contributions to be used for a PAC's administrative overhead are unconstitutionally vague because they require those accepting the money to determine the intent of the donors.

This argument too was rejected by Judge Priest last year. I say that the statute is crystal clear and the reason why there's no case law on the subject is because no one's been dumb enough to try to challenge it before now. And even if you accept Attorney Pauerstein's logic, the state's evidence in the case showed that the defendants themselves understood the distinction between administrative overhead and other types of expenses. I hate to predict what judges will do, but I just don't see this one.

I should note that the reason why DeLay is not pursuing this line of appeal is because at the time he was hoping to have everything more or less wrapped up before the March primary, and this route was expected to take much longer to resolve. If Ellis and Colyandro do strike gold, however, then as DeLay's attorney says in the article it's highly likely that his indictments will get tossed as a resiult as well. Stay tuned.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on August 23, 2006 to Scandalized! | TrackBack