Politics

Pluses, Minuses for Blagojevich in Appellate Ruling

Published

10 years ago

July 22, 2015

In this March 15, 2012 file photo, former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich waves as he departs his Chicago home for Littleton, Colo., to begin his 14-year prison sentence on corruption charges. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago on Tuesday, July 21, 2015, tossed out some of Blagojevich’s convictions that he sought to sell or trade President Barack Obama’s old U.S. Senate seat. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast, File)

MICHAEL TARM, Associated Press

CHICAGO (AP) — Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich may still end up serving all of his 14-year prison term despite an appeals court ruling that he didn’t break the law when he sought to secure a post in President Barack Obama’s Cabinet for appointing an Obama adviser to the president’s old U.S. Senate seat.

In overturning five of 18 corruptions counts that sent Blagojevich off to a prison, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago on Tuesday also ordered he be resentenced. But the court said his original prison sentence may not be extreme, even with some counts dismissed.

Speaking outside the Blagojevich family home in Chicago, his wife, Patti, told reporters later Tuesday that her husband had expressed disappointment the court didn’t hand him a clear legal victory.

“He’s disappointed, of course,” she said, the couple’s 18-year-old daughter at her side. She added more optimistically, “Possibly this is a step in the right direction of getting Rod home to his family.”

The court’s unanimous ruling addressed a key question looming over the Blagojevich case: Where is the line between legal and illegal political wheeling and dealing? The panel’s answer: When it came to Blagojevich’s attempt to land a Cabinet seat, he did not cross the line. But his attempts to trade the Senate seat for campaign cash, however, were illegal, the court concluded.

On federal wiretaps played at his trial, the two-term Democratic governor broached the idea of a Cabinet job in exchange for appointing Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett to Obama’s vacant Senate seat. That never happened.

In its ruling, the appeals court pointed to allegations that President Dwight Eisenhower named Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court after Warren offered Eisenhower key political support during the 1952 campaign. The judges said that under the logic used to charge Blagojevich, Eisenhower and Warren might have been convicted.

“If the (Blagojevich) prosecutor is right, and a swap of political favors involving a job for one of the politicians is a felony, then … both the President of the United States and the Chief Justice of the United States should have gone to prison,” the ruling says.

But the judges upheld allegations that Blagojevich sought to sell the Senate seat for campaign cash, describing the evidence against him as overwhelming. Blagojevich had argued he didn’t break the law because he never stated explicitly that he was willing to trade an appointment for campaign cash. The panel balked at that notion.

“Few politicians say, on or off the record, ‘I will exchange official act X for payment Y,'” the opinion says. “Similarly, persons who conspire to rob banks or distribute drugs do not propose or sign contracts in the statutory language.”

Defense attorney Leonard Goodman said he would urge his client to challenge the panel’s finding, possibly by asking the full appeals court to rehear the case.

For their part, prosecutors could retry Blagojevich on the dropped counts, though prosecutors often decline to retry a case if most counts are upheld. The U.S. attorney’s office has declined to comment on the ruling.

After his December 2008 arrest, Blagojevich became the butt of jokes on late-night TV, including for his well-coiffed hair and his foul-mouthed rants on FBI wiretaps. The most notorious excerpt was one where he crows about the Senate seat: “I’ve got this thing and it’s f—— golden. And I’m just not giving it up for f—— nothing.”

Blagojevich began serving his sentence at a prison near Denver on March 15, 2012, and has served more than three years. Before the appeal, his estimated release date was 2024; he would be 67.

___

Associated Press writers Tammy Webber, Don Babwin, Sophia Tareen, Herbert McCann and Sara Burnett contributed to this report.

___

Follow Michael Tarm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/mtarm.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Chiding Congress, Obama Urges Fast Ex-Im Bank Renewal

Don't Miss

In Wake of Riots and Crime Spike, Baltimore Mayor Under Fire

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark

Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

Published

1 day ago

June 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook. Courtesy of Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook

As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.

Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.

Our community is hurting. Things have to change.

The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.

Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.

I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.

SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.

For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.

This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.

Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.

Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.

About the Author

Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌

Air Quality Board Rejects Two Rules Written to Ban Gas Water Heaters and Furnaces

The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units. “We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”

Published

3 days ago

June 17, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock.

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

Two proposed rules to eliminate the usage of gas water heaters and furnaces by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Southern California were rejected by the Governing Board on June 6.

Energy policy analysts say the board’s decision has broader implications for the state.

With a 7-5 vote, the board decided not to amend Rules 1111 and 1121 at the meeting held in Diamond Bar in L.A. County.

The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units.

“We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”

The AQMD governing board is a 13-member body responsible for setting air quality policies and regulations within the South Coast Air Basin, which covers areas in four counties: Riverside County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and parts of Los Angeles County.

The board is made up of representatives from various elected offices within the region, along with members who are appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and Senate Rules Committee.

Holly J. Mitchell, who serves as a County Supervisor for the Second District of Los Angeles County, is a SCAQMD board member. She supported the amendments, but respected the board’s final decision, stating it was a “compromise.”

“In my policymaking experience, if you can come up with amended language that everyone finds some fault with, you’ve probably threaded the needle as best as you can,” Mitchell said before the vote. “What I am not okay with is serving on AQMD is making no decision. Why be here? We have a responsibility to do all that we can to get us on a path to cleaner air.”

The rules proposed by AQMD, Rule 1111 and Rule 1121, aim to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from natural gas-fired furnaces and water heaters.

Rule 1111 and Rule 1121 were designed to control air pollution, particularly emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx).

Two days before the Governing Board’s vote, gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa asked SCAQMD to reject the two rules.

Villaraigosa expressed his concerns during a Zoom call with the Cost of Living Council, a Southern California organization that also opposes the rules. Villaraigosa said the regulations are difficult to understand.

“Let me be clear, I’ve been a big supporter of AQMD over the decades. I have been a believer and a fighter on the issue of climate change my entire life,” Villaraigosa said. “But there is no question that what is going on now just doesn’t make sense. We are engaging in regulations that are put on the backs of working families, small businesses, and the middle class, and we don’t have the grid for all this.”

Rules 1111 and 1121 would also establish manufacturer requirements for the sale of space and water heating units that meet low-NOx and zero-NOx emission standards that change over time, according to SCAQMD.

The requirements also include a mitigation fee for NOx-emitting units, with an option to pay a higher mitigation fee if manufacturers sell more low-NOx water heating and space units.

Proponents of the proposed rules say the fees are designed to incentivize actions that reduce emissions.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Congress Says Yes to Rep. Simon’s Disability Hiring and Small Biz Support Bill

“As the first congenitally blind person to serve in Congress, I am incredibly honored to lead and excited to celebrate the House passage of the ‘ThinkDIFFERENTLY About Disability Employment Act,’” said Simon.

Published

3 days ago

June 17, 2025

Oakland Post

U.S. Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-CA-12). File photo.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

The House of Representatives unanimously passed the “ThinkDIFFERENTLY About Disability Employment Act” on June 3, marking a major win for U.S. Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-CA-12) and co-sponsor Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN-08) in their bipartisan effort to promote inclusive hiring and boost small business accessibility.

The legislation establishes a federal partnership between the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the National Council on Disability to help small businesses across the U.S. hire more individuals with disabilities and provide resources for disabled entrepreneurs.

“Small businesses are the lifeblood of cities, making them accessible for all will maximize local economic activity and broaden the job market to everyone who is seeking to contribute to their communities,” she continued. “Investments in business and talent in our communities shouldn’t be limited to just those who are not disabled. Full stop, period.”

Since taking office in January 2025, Simon has introduced six bills. The House has approved two of them: this measure and the “Assisting Small Businesses, Not Fraudsters Act.”

Simon, a lifelong disability rights advocate and former BART board member, has focused her career on improving access, from public transit to the job market.