Matt Gaetz had to lie low for awhile while people wondered about his sexual orientation, being a right wing and supposedly Christian conservative, and all. I guess he figured he can stick his head up after Jerry Falwell, Jr.'s antics were exposed, and people still want to support the fils Falwell. Plus, this is a great way to warm the hearts of white conservatives who make up his constituency, which is to stop black felons from voting. Here we see Gaetz happily reporting his discussions with state or federal prosecutors in Florida who are investigating whether Michael Bloomberg may prosecuted for his role in restoring 32,000 felons' right to vote in Florida.
This FoxNews report was interesting, though, because viewers got to hear a beautiful woman (a Fox special, ya know?) tell them why felons should not be subjected to civic death after serving prison time. Then, right after that, they got to see and hear another fairly attractive woman (yeah, FoxNews!) say the real issue should be how rich people such as Bloomberg, Soros, and the Koch Bros (well, only one left, ya know?) are overly influencing our system overall. Those are two left-wing talking points, regardless of the source. Wild, eh?
Anyway, the FoxNews host, another beautiful woman, then went to the "Democrat" commentator, which shows how Fox thinks of anyone not a Republican or right winger. God forbid a FoxNews person would say the correct pronunciation, which is "Democratic Party" person. That person, of course, threw some cold water on the theory that this is a violation of a voting bribery statute in Florida, though she correctly recognized the memorandum from Bloomberg saying he wanted to bring in new voters (written before he knew about this issue) could bite him in a politically minded prosecution.
I read the statute this morning, and there is an important qualifier in the beginning of the first section of the statute: It says, "Whoever by bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, attempts to influence, deceive, or deter any elector in voting...." Bloomberg's donation to the felons-right group is certainly not bribery because we know, from studies of felons, they can easily vote Republican or right wing, especially if they are poor and white. What the studies show is these people, more men than women, have lived a life based upon punishment values, and who deserves or does not deserve whatever. That makes them more susceptible to conservative, not liberal, exhortations. Bloomberg is not paying these people's fines directly, and the statute does say direct or indirect, we should note. However, what Bloomberg is doing is donating to a non-profit group, and a coalition of similar groups, that have been set up with the narrow purpose of restoring felon voting rights. The group or coalition is not at all implying or asking felons how they would vote or influence them as to whom they would vote. Bloomberg is not talking to the felons, not is he having any intermediaries talk or otherwise influence the felons' votes. Proving bribery here would be problematic or not a way to go at all against Bloomberg.
Second, what we know about the Bloomberg donation to the coalition or group is certainly not an example of a "menace" or "threat" against the felons who get back their voting rights. This leaves the sole issue of whether Bloomberg donating to a group that was dedicated to restoring felons' rights is "corrupt." However, here, one needs only to cite the conservative Justices at the US Supreme Court, including former Justice Kennedy, who have basically read "corruption" out of the conversation, as anything other than explicit bribery, when it comes to money and politics. Karma is a bitch, Mr. Gaetz.
However, there is a second section of the Florida statute. The heart of the statute's second section says:
"No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote...."
(The rest is about the explanation of the felony and a statement of exception for food or a button or regalia one wears in political advertisements).
The question is whether Bloomberg's donation to the organization that works to restore voting rights for felons is trying to corruptly influence an individual felon in casting his or her vote. This suffers from the same problem as in the first section with the word "corruptly" as the US Supreme Court's "money equals speech" jurisprudence has made it less than clear that Bloomberg giving to an organization that is working, without asking for people to vote one way or the other, is an act of corruption--regardless of a memo he wrote to other Democrats some time ago.
I am not saying the Republican Attorney General or some Republican District Attorney in Florida won't indict and try to imprison and fine Michael Bloomberg. I am, however, saying the prosecution would likely upset the entire apple cart of the "money equals speech" crowd if the statute is interpreted the way Gaetz now wants it to be interpreted. However, we also know Republicans don't care about consistency, and we know they will make use of bad faith arguments with more and more politically compliant judges.
I must admit it will be fun to watch Bloomberg defend himself, with an army of lawyers from all sides of the political aisles, push back against the vengeful politically minded prosecutors. From what we saw with Kansas Secretary of State and lawyer, Kris Kobach, there are some really incompetent lawyers on the right wing side, and, when up against silk stocking lawyers from major law firms, they are exposed worse than a poorly prepared High School Mock Trial student.
