Siegelman, Scushy sentencing hearing begins tomorrow

Here are links to reports from the Huntsville Times, the Birmingham News, and the Associated Press.

And here are a few of my thoughts:

Prosecutors are seeking 30 years in the hoosegow for Don Siegelman and 25 years for Richard Scrushy. Given the nature and magnitude of their crimes (or at least the crimes that they were actually convicted of), that seems far too excessive. In fact, I think that anything more than a year in jail and a big fine would be excessive. The fact that federal law would even allow the imposition of such stiff penalties for crimes of so little significance (i.e. non-violent offenses stemming from run-of-the-mill "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" forms of public corruption) strikes me as absurd.

The crimes Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted of involved payments totaling $500,000 from then-HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy to Gov. Siegelman; Scrushy made these payments in exchange for an appointment to the Alabama Certificate of Need (CON) Review Board, whose job is to regulate the supply of health care in the state and to thereby serve as a prime example of big government at its worst. All-in-all, this sounds an awful lot like run-of-the-mill politicking to me; the fact that Scrushy's $500,000 went into Siegelman's lottery campaign fund - and apparently not into his bank account - makes it hard for me to see how that particular exchange constitutes "bribery." Still, both Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted of bribery, in addition to several related counts of mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. (Siegelman was also convicted of obstruction of justice in a matter unrelated to the Scrushy contribution/appointment.)

I've had a tough time figuring out how this whole sordid affair was any of the federal government's business to begin with, and I remain unconvinced. The "bribe" was between a the Governor of Alabama and a businessman who resided in Alabama. The money went into a campaign fund that was used to support a statewide referendum. The Certificate of Need Review Board - to which Scrushy was appointed - is a state-run board. So far, so good. However...as I understand it, the CON review board only exists because federal law requires (or at least strongly suggests) that states implement CON procedures in order to eat in Washington's hospital cafeteria; that is, to receive federal funding for various health care planning activities. Apparently, that's the hook that gave federal prosecutors their "in" to go after Siegelman and Scrushy. In my humble New Deal/Great Society-bashing opinion, if anyone is guilty of bribery here, it's the whole d--ned federal gu'mint.

Alabama has had more than its fair share of ethically-challenged politicians. Don Siegelman was among the worst. If he and his buddies violated state ethics laws, then they should be punished under the laws of Alabama. Even if they didn't, Siegelman's actions as Governor were reprehensible. If there has been anything good to come out of this trial, it's that we got confirmation of just how corrupt he really was. Still, as much as I dislike Don Siegelman, I'm not at all thrilled that he will be spending time in jail for this.

Update/correction (6/27/07): I stated in my post that "as I understand it, the CON review board only exists because federal law requires (or at least strongly suggests) that states implement CON procedures in order to eat in Washington's hospital cafeteria; that is, to receive federal funding for various health care planning activities." My understanding wasn't quite right. The federal mandate requiring states to establish a CON process in order to get federal funding was repealed in 1987, although 36 states, including Alabama, still maintain CON programs.