Alabama: Litigation motive apparent

Vanzetta McPherson: Litigation motive apparent

Now that two federal juries have acquitted the defendants in the infamous legislative corruption trials, it’s time to play “Litigation Motivation,” the classic multiple-choice game that focuses on political trials and entertains millions. In this game, the LM is never as obvious as it seems. In fact, it sometimes emerges accidentally, or, as in the recent corruption trial, fortuitously.

This study guide should assist the anxious student determined to excel in the game.

Let’s get started.

The defendants — former and current Alabama legislators, lobbyists, and casino owners — were charged with bribery by giving or accepting money in exchange for legislative votes on Senate Bill 380, passage of which would have authorized a constitutional referendum on whether to legalize electronic bingo at Alabama casinos. The object of LM in this instance is to determine the chief motivating factors for the charges. There are four options, all of which may apply in varying degrees. But one possible option is critical, and without it, the litigation might never have occurred.

The question is: Why did Republican Alabama legislators trigger an FBI investigation by alleging that they had been offered bribes for their votes on SB380?

The first option is “because they abhorred gambling.” Comme ci, comme ca. In a state where reverence for football is on parity in many quarters with reverence for God (i.e., the ninth poorest state with the nation’s highest paid college football coach), gambling on games is its own sport. Moreover, the tax base in neighboring Mississippi, with its casinos, and the public schools in neighboring Georgia, with their cushioning lottery, have benefited exponentially from Alabamians eager to game their way to wealth. Finally, the head of former Governor Bob Riley’s Illegal Gambling Task Force embarrassingly resigned in 2010 after winning $2,300 at a Choctaw Indian casino in Mississippi.

The second option is “because they rejected money from gambling enterprises.” Nyet! A Riley campaign aide reported that Mississippi’s Choctaw Indians contributed millions to Riley in 2002 to assure his rejection of gambling in Alabama, thus protecting their enterprise from competition. In 2010, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, which operates at least three casinos in Alabama, gave more than $500,000 to the Republican State Leadership Committee, which in turn funneled more than $1 million to Alabama Republicans. And today, Creek Indians admirably share millions of their gambling profits with local school boards and cultural institutions in Alabama. That money is actively sought by Republicans and Democrats; no one rejects it because of its source.

(Page 2 of 2)


The third option is “because they rejected campaign contributions designed to secure support for legislation.” Nada. Contributions to public officials from special interests who later request favorable consideration of legislation which advances those interests is . . . well, politics. Just ask Alfa, the Alabama Business Council, Alabama Power, AEA, or the trial lawyers. Individual contributors fare just as well, with cabinet and judicial appointments.

The fourth option is “because they wanted to ensure Republican dominance and suppress African American voting influence.” Absolutely! In conversations recorded by the FBI during its pretrial investigation of corruption, Republican Senators Scott Beason, Benjamin Lewis and others agreed that SB380 should be defeated because a referendum on the ballot would drive black voters to the polls, which would not be good for Republicans. Referring to blacks in Greene County (site of a casino) as “aborigines,” Beason and others commented that “HUD-financed buses” would take black voters to the polls in the November 2010 election if the ballot included a referendum to legalize electronic bingo.

Another, equally damning, factor in the motivation of lawmakers who encouraged the investigation is the money trail. As the court noted in an order condemning Beason, Lewis and others for “ulterior motives rooted in naked political ambition and pure racial bias,” blacks tend to vote Democratic, and gambling enterprises tended to support Democrats.

As a contemporary Rube Goldberg machine, the Republicans’ serial plan was to facilitate indictments of casino owners and supporting legislators, to destroy their business interests, to eliminate their income and profits, to thwart contributions to Democratic officials, to assure a Republican takeover of the Legislature.

Click option four.

Game over.

Vanzetta Penn McPherson is a retired federal magistrate judge.