I don’t know anything about these ethics laws or about how they are enforced; I hope I didn’t imply that I did. My point was that Laurin (who does know something about law) seemed to be looking at the laws by themselves, on their own merits, and stating that they are tough compared to other states. ???, on the other hand, seemed to be looking at the enforcement and origin of the laws. Of course we can understand a law by observing where it came from, but it’s origin (and enforcement) are separate issues from the letter of the law.

I also reject that no good can come out of bad things like civil rights violations (although I would say that there is always more harm than good to come out of such actions). Since you mentioned the Nazis, their medical experiments were horrendous and we would be better off if they had never been done; however, it obtained medical knowledge that was very useful, and declining to use this “tainted” knowledge would just put more people at risk. My rough understanding of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument, in the specific context of law, is that it usually refers to evidence, not legislation. Using it to talk about public policy decisions, while still valid, falls closer to the Nazi case than it does to cases of using tainted evidence.

One more thing- ??? states that the State Ethics Laws are a violation of civil rights, because they are unevenly applied and therefore run afoul of the equal protection clause included in the 14th Amendment. I’m a bit confused- how does uneven enforcement of a law make the law itself a problem? If the state only prosecuted, say, Asian murderers and let the all other ethnic groups get away with murder, that would be a gross violation of civil rights, but that wouldn’t imply our murder laws are twisted or unfair. It would just imply our government/ law enforcement/ court system was twisted and unfair.

We all have heard of legislating from the bench. I do believe with others that this was an attempt to politic from the bench. After all, innocent people went to jail, and when that happens we all fail.

And in conclusion, the State Ethics Commission(SEC) is basically a political weapon guised under color of law. And I would gladly take them into any Federal Court in the land. Republicans cry of McCain-Feingold, but support the SEC as long as it is convenient.Both limit contribution and campaign speech. But, when it becomes inconvenient(controlled by Democrats) then, they will protest as I am now.

Enjoyed the chat, out of town for a week. Have a nice one number 18.

By the way, the whole firm here is laughing at you all. Truthseeker is right on mark.

Just another weapon for the bad guys to use at their discretion.

Operation Lost Trust-Violation of Civil Rights(42USC1983)
State Ethics Laws-Violation of Civil Rights(equal protection)

The application of the above-cited were and are flawed so, how can someone in good conscience defend/advocate something that tainted both now, and then? Both are classic discriminatory application cases involving political views as being the basis for the prosecution thereof.

So, do you and Laurin think that either are fair and equally applied as required or just another long line of constraints designed to repress political discourse much like “Jim Crow”?

With regard to being a jerk, I will accept that if, you will agree you are a Nazi and not a friend to democracy.

Truthseeker,
Maybe someone should file a complaint against the state over the ethics laws or more specifically, the application thereof in a real court-Federal Court. I know you see the light. I always love to hear the rumours of the SEC being disbanded.