The Art of the Deal

It was an outcome that would hardly be unfamiliar to today's political practitioners.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, William Crawford and Henry Clay failed to win an Electoral College majority, so the election was thrown into the House. Clay, the House speaker, hated Jackson and threw his support to Adams, who became president and promptly named Clay his secretary of state. Critics accused them of a "corrupt bargain." But that was before cable, so there were no nightly segments on Claygate.

I was as revolted as anyone by the obscenity-laced brazenness of Rod Blagojevich seeming willing to auction off anything that wasn't nailed down in the state of Illinois. But as the above episode illustrates, political horse-trading is as old as the Republic. When does it cross the line into illegality?

Obviously, when a public official demands something -- cash, a job for his wife, the firing of critical editorial writers -- in exchange for an official act, it meets the definition of extortion. When someone offers a public official something -- money, a job, campaign contributions -- in exchange for a contract or appointment, it fits the definition of bribery.

But didn't bleeping Blago just make explicit what is often implicit among politicians? Don't they angle for support with a wink and a nod? Didn't Obama name Hillary, Biden and Richardson to his Cabinet after they endorsed his candidacy? Don't presidents often reward major donors who can't speak a foreign language with ambassadorships? When big corporations, trade groups and unions make contributions, does anyone believe they don't expect anything in return? Is it a mere coincidence when a lawmaker then sees the light and introduces a favorable bill?

None of this is to excuse Pay-Rod's what-the-bleep-is-in-it-for-me crassness. But sometimes the scandal is what's legal. We've all become inured to inside political dealing. Perhaps much of that dealing would look different if we knew what the players were saying in private.

At the same time, we don't want to criminalize political negotiations. Rahm gave Blago's folks a list of acceptable Senate candidates? So what? If he wasn't having such talks, he should be sued for political malpractice. Unless he promised the governor something in return, it sounds pretty routine.

What's not routine is this:

"The Illinois House launched its first-ever impeachment probe of a governor Monday, promising weeks of hearings detailing Gov. Rod Blagojevich's alleged abuse of power, from enacting massive programs without legislative approval to seeking to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama," the Chicago Tribune reports.

That about sums up his political support: zero.

"But the House also held off on calls to strip the disgraced governor of his power to appoint Obama's successor, angering Republicans who accused Democrats of a power play aimed at protecting their dominance of state politics."

The Sun-Times says: "Barack Obama insisted once again Monday that his office did nothing wrong in its contacts with Gov. Blagojevich's office over a replacement for Obama's seat in the U.S. Senate -- but the president-elect said the feds have asked him to delay release of an internal report that clears his staff."