News-Record.com

You're right, Doug. Politics is politics, and Holding can't expect the $6,000 he gave to Dole and the $3,000 he gave to Burr to keep him in his job forever.

Kind of ironic if you think about it...

Letting Holding stay longer will give assurances that politics will take a back seat to justice.* Doug

That is like the Fox resigning his security job at the Hen House and hiring the Wolf to continue the good work of the Fox.........

Steve,

Ideally, of course, U.S. attorneys wouldn't have connections to politicians. In present circumstances, I'm glad Holding wasn't a political pal of Edwards and Easley.

I hope we'll be able to say the same about Holding's replacement, but that may be less likely.

"Ideally?" Come on, Doug.

You put forward the position that Holding should be kept on board to fight political corruption, but when presented with evidence he himself likely engaged in pay-to-play (money=job), you write that off as merely having "connections"?

It's a sad state of affairs when actual money changing hands is no longer a rare enough occurrence to be deemed unethical or corrupt.

Holding's boss, Attorney General Eric Holder, contributed to Barack Obama's campaign:

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/eric-holder.asp?cycle=08

Money = job?

Should that contribution have disqualified Holder for the justice job? Should the same rules apply for U.S. attorneys?

If that's your proposal, Steve, I'm willing to go along with it.

That's a faulty "tu quoque" argument, Doug.

You've set up Holding as a "fighter of corruption" who should not be removed, so that justice can prevail over politics. And further intimated that his Democratic replacement will not pursue justice with as much vigor, even though you have no idea who his replacement might be.

As such, the "He's not the only one who did this" defense of his actions does not elevate him to the higher standard your article posits.

Not at all.

You equated money/job with corruption. If it applies to Holding, it applies to Holder.

But what is your position? What should be done to eliminate this corruption or at least the appearance of it?

You know the same will be true of the next U.S. attorney.

Do you think the Easley's are second guessing who they supported for POTUS?

I don't think Gov. Easley earned any favors from the winner of that election...

B. Clinton, "Hey Mike, have a nice vacation in Italy? First class all the way, I bet. Don't worry about those expense reports. Once Hillary wins, she'll make sure , uh, you know, the US Attny Gen. will be, umm, heh, heh...wink wink nod nod"

I voted for US Senator Kay Hagan 2008. I am embarrassed that I did if she supports ex-cummunication of a learned man due to his is a Republican. She sat in NC Senate in the finance committee for 8 years or more. Black in the House of Representatives held the purse strings to the state money. Black is in prison for corruption. She was a Hunt favorite. She never as a law school graduate questioned why a governors wife was at first offered a job at NC State to teach law. I thought that was funny due to I knew State did not have a law school. Then the excuse was it was art and creativity speaker, how important she was etc. I remember her trip to Italy..top class. I remember the faux painting in her mansion that cost taxpayers a bunch of money. Kay Hagan needs to put on her thinking cap and stop doing favors for the corrupt and the more corrupt. She is a good honest trusting woman I hope that realizes she was playing with a band of thieves.

"If it applies to Holding, it applies to Holder."

Doug, I could just as easily say, "If it applies to Easley, it applies to Bush." Considering that Air Force One costs the taxpayers $57,000 an hour, President Bush's fundraising whistlestops make Easley's travelgate seem like peanuts. The difference is, Bush's staffers were smart enough to schedule at least one public event wherever he went. But it doesn't change the fact that millions were misused.

"What should be done to eliminate this corruption or at least the appearance of it?"

I just had a similar debate with Brent Woodcox over this. Government reform, including campaign finance reform, is the only way to seriously reduce this behavior. I believe a refined formula for public financing of campaigns should be a part of that.

But even if you don't agree with that part, you should agree that much stricter limitations on both hard and soft money contributions, getting rid of earmarks/no-bid contracts, severely curtailing the patronage-based system of appointments, etc., are all common-sense steps that would have an almost immediate effect on the amount of corruption (or appearance of) that plagues our government, whether local, state or federal.

But that makes way too much sense. Better off to just ignore all the special-interest money flowing into government, and then act surprised and outraged when a whack-a-mole corrupt politician pops up.

Steve, I don't think Easley's use of state aircraft to fly him to Southport every weekend was illegal.

The real issue was free flights from campaign supporters without reporting the value of those flights as campaign contributions.

A politician could corrupt a public-finance campaign system by doing exactly the same thing: accepting "services" that benefit the campaign and not reporting them.

Candidate can't be forced to participate in public financing anyway. There will always be those who opt out. Then there are the expenditures by independent advocacy groups, political parties, whoever. So there's no perfect solution.

I'm still evaluating the pros and cons of public finance plans. I have dropped my initial opposition for the system for judicial candidates, which most of the candidates have bought in to. The problem with that is that the funds provided simply aren't adequate for a statewide judicial candidate to get his or her message out across the state. They have to be very selective about where they spend their limited resources, and most voters remain ignorant when they choose judges. But, realistically, taxpayers are not going to support huge increases in public funding for elections.

I think some increased funding would be better spent beefing up the Board of Elections investigative staff. There are good election laws, not that improvements aren't possible, but better enforcement could help deter politicians from abusing the system.

"But, realistically, taxpayers are not going to support huge increases in public funding for elections."

You're right, of course, but they (the public) don't really understand the whole picture. If they did, they would see the "false economy" of fighting against this.

First off, all that corporate money going into campaigns is skimmed off the top—the cost of doing business, as it were. And that cost is transferred to consumers. Secondly, all that government spending that is a direct result of backscratching (what percent?) comes right out of taxpayers' pockets.

Basically what I'm saying is, we're already (all) paying for it, but someone else is getting the credit/favors. Public financing could end up being a net gain for taxpayers.

Then there are the expenditures by independent advocacy groups, political parties, whoever. So there's no perfect solution.* Doug

Sure there is Doug! It's call the internet and it is very cheap and well proven from past campaigns that got the message out with millions of votes for a candiate that didn't take a one dime from any donor or a government estalishment funded socialist program, unless one believes that the internet must be control by the government......

Why is George Holding being replaced? Is he lazy incompetent or just not in the shopping cart of the cartel? Why are we shopping for a successor? Is it due to Easley or Edwards? Is it due to cowards that call others cowards? Is it due to friends of the guilty without knowing?

I think pretty much as this discussion has shown, the winning political team puts its supporters in plum positions.

Interesting that Tony Rand's son is considered a leading candidate for this post. But reports indicate he'd probably rather not have to conduct an Easley investigation because of political connections creating a conflict of interest (Easley appointed him to a judgeship). He would be suspected of giving Easley preferential treatment.

Cumberland County Tony Rand appears to wear many hats. I was not aware of his son's accomplishments. I just knew Rand was powerful and private and if he said jump, jumping it was.