I don’t normally have particular interest in corruption charges against members of Congress–not that they shouldn’t go to jail, and, better yet, be tarred and feathered–it’s just that there is only so much time in the day, But, I’ve always made an exception for William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson, and we’ve been following his travails since his office was raided in 2005 mainly because he was one of the CAFTA 15–the 15 House Democrats who sold out workers by voting for the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

    You may recall that "Dollar Bill" was indicted last summer on bribery charges. On top of the fact that he stored $90,000 in his freezer (and what good American doesn’t do that?), Jefferson has been a poster child for influence-peddling.

    And, believe it or not, that is now his argument in his bribery trial–it wasn’t bribery but influence-peddling–an argument that was rejected by a federal judge. From the Associated Press:

A federal judge has refused to toss out a bribery indictment against a Louisiana congressman who argued that his alleged misdeeds were technically more akin to influence peddling than bribery.

In an order made public Tuesday, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III denied a motion filed by U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., seeking dismissal of 15 of the 16 counts against him.

Prosecutors allege that Jefferson received hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for using his influence to broker business deals in Africa.

Jefferson’s lawyers argued unsuccessfully that federal bribery laws apply to a congressman only if he takes a bribe in exchange for official action like taking votes or sponsoring legislation.

    So, "Dollar Bill" is basically arguing–I’m not guilt of the scummy act of bribery because I was engaging in scummy influence-peddling. I had to read that twice before wondering: when will the Democratic Party make it clear that there is no room in the party for "influence-peddling" as a defense for indefensible behavior?