Evidence and proof

[Baker, John]

        Frankly, the evidence does not suggest a quid pro quo ("something
for something").  Clinton granted pardons to some large contributors but
refused to grant them for others (e.g., Michael Milken), and the Marc Rich
supporters' emails show that they were by no means confident that a pardon
would be forthcoming.

        The flaw in this argument is that contributions can be improper even
in the absence of a quid pro quo.  Clinton's actions, where pardons mostly
went to large contributors or others who had special access, reminded me of
the "pay to play" practices that are sometimes seen in state and local
government.  In a pay to play practice, those who contribute are not assured
an award of a government contract, but failure to contribute will guarantee
that another is selected.  Pay to play practices are widely condemned.
Typically they are illegal, but a less serious crime than outright bribery;
because prosecution is difficult, prophylactic rules often are imposed.  A
Securities and Exchange Commission discussion of pay to play practices in
the financial markets is available at

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/ia-1812.htm

John Baker

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Campbell [SMTP:dcamp911 at JUNO.COM]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 4:16 PM
> To:   ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject:      Evidence and proof
>
> No doubt a fax went out, and all Clinton supporters are speaking as with
> one voice that there is no evidence of a quid pro quo. There is plenty of
> evidence. What there is not is proof I'm sure the mix-up is inadvertent.
> Aren't you?
>
> D