October 27th, 2008

Megan McArdle, who is usually a more careful reader, and Glenn Reynolds, who usually isn’t, both accuse me of urging the prosecution of the wingnuts who have been submitting false-name contributions on the Obama website, and criticize me for trying to use the power of law enforcement to suppress criticism the people I support politically.

Just one thing: Nowhere in the post they refer to (reproduced in full after the jump) do I say a syllable about prosecution. I merely point out that the activity violates the law, which means that people doing it shouldn’t crow quite so loudly. Of course no actual investigator or prosecutor would waste his time working on a case involving a $5 contribution to Obama in the name of “Mickey Mouse.” Neither Megan, who isn’t a lawyer, nor Glenn, who is, bothers to offer any reason why the activity in question, which both of them have publicized and praised, doesn’t constitute wire fraud as defined in the statute.

Now, in case you’re in any doubt, I know perfectly well how to demand a prosecution when I think it’s appropriate. For example, in discussing the illegal intrusions into Joe the (non)Plumber’s motor vehicle records, I wrote “At least three people almost certainly broke the law. And they ought to go to jail for it.” The people making those phony contributions shouldn’t go to jail. But they should stop bragging about their criminal activity.

As to the prosecution of political enemies, I wonder if Glenn has ever heard of Don Siegelman? If so he’s never, to my knowledge, let his readers in on it.

Legal query

If a wingnut uses the Internet to give the Obama campaign a donation in a fake name, with the intent of fooling the website into accepting an invalid contribution, isn’t that using interstate communications facilities to defraud under 18 USC 1343?

Here’s part of the definition of “fraud” from Black’s Law Dictionary:

a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury

Seems like a pretty good fit to me.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook

Comments are closed.