NBC Chicago: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Blagojevich Appeal
By Phil Rogers
Blagojevich, his family, and supporters had argued there was a larger issue at stake than the former governor’s freedom. Numerous politicians and others filed briefs with the court, asking that they take Blagojevich’s case to clear up what even opponents agree is arcane and at times, even conflicting campaign finance law.
“Why is it so easy to put politicians in jail in the Midwest, and so difficult on the east coast,” asked Leonard Goodman, Blagojevich’s attorney. “If we’re going to require elected officials who aren’t independently wealthy to go out and raise funds, tell them what the line is so that they can follow the rules.”
At issue, he argued, one standard (McCormick v. United States) which says a politician breaks the law if he makes an explicit promise to do something in exchange for a campaign contribution. But another ruling (Evans v. United States) presents a conflict in the eyes of many critics—that the lawmaker only needs to believe that something is expected…
“Although Blagojevich is an unsympathetic petitioner, the court should hear his case,” David Keating, President of the Institute for Free Speech wrote last week in the publication The Hill. “The Supreme Court finally has a chance to provide clarity and a uniform standard nationally by taking this case.”
The Court declined to take that chance, rejecting Blagojevich’s appeal, without comment.
