• commentary
  • WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 7 2007 5:00 PM

Justice Department More Likely to Investigate Dems then Repubs

Submitted by legionnaire

Edited by legionnaire

Tags: Democrats, Republicans, Bush, department of justice, Alberto Gonzales

Part of the purpose of the US Department of Justice is to investigate elected officials suspected of participating in illegal actions like election fraud and bribery. As such it is an indispensable component of the federal government, since an impartial and effective Justice Department means that any elected representative considering wrongdoing knows that there is a reasonable chance of being caught and potentially jailed. It keeps politicians honest. Well, provided they're Democrats. Republicans' notorious hatred of government oversight apparently also includes scrutiny of themselves.

A study of reported federal investigations of elected officials and candidates shows that the Bush administration’s Justice Department pursues Democrats far more than Republicans. 79 percent of elected officials and candidates who’ve faced a federal investigation (a total of 379) between 2001 and 2006 were Democrats, the study found – only 18 percent were Republicans. During that period, Democrats made up 50 percent of elected officeholders and office seekers during the time period, and 41 percent were Republicans during that period, according to the study.

"The chance of such a heavy Democratic-Republican imbalance occurring at random is 1 in 10,000," according to the study's authors.

The vast disparity came not from the more high-profile investigations of state-wide or federal officeholders (the disparity there was 55-44 Democratic), but from the far more numerous investigations of local officials. The study found that 85 percent of the 309 local officials and candidates who faced investigation were Democrats.

The study, based on press reports of federal investigations, was conducted by two retired professors, Dr. Donald C. Shields, Professor Emeritus from the Department of Communication, University of Missouri-St. Louis, and Dr. John F. Cragan, Professor Emeritus from the Department of Communication, Illinois State University, who have been collecting the data over the past several years. An earlier version of the study was presented to the National Communication Association in 2005. The latest summary of their data (through the end of 2006) was provided to us by Dr. Shields.


It is telling that the difference is with rank-and-file representatives rather than more high profile targets. Certainly more visible cases of fraud like William Jefferson (D-LA) are likely to garner a disproportionate amount of investigating, regardless of party affiliation simply due to the greater potential for embarrassment by the government. But outside of columns in local papers, these small-time investigations and subsequent convictions are unlikely to garner much press coverage, and it is therefore even more important to keep investigative pressure from the DoJ on lower ranking officials as nonpartisan as possible, so that lower ranking officials don't begin to believe that they are above the law simply because their party is in power. Unless of course, that is true, which is the unfortunate direction at which the study points.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

FEB 07, 2007 05:20 PM

Well now, this shocks me.

freshprncebelair

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD
June 2004

FEB 07, 2007 05:26 PM

Well, the article doesn't mention this, but were other presidential administrations analyzed and compared with the Bush administration?

I mean, this article gives us no perspective as far as if Democrats were being investigated more during the Clinton administration as well. Im surprised that a breakdown of previous presidencies were not included, but I suspect there is a similar "1 in 10,000 chance" of that being simply due to chance.

ericwine

ericwine

Charlotte Hall, MD
January 2007

FEB 07, 2007 05:33 PM

I'm pretty sure Republicans were investigated more by Clinton's Justice Department than Democrats, even if it's only because the civil servants want to please the political appointees who sign off on their performance evaluations. (And who can forget the Clinton White House acquiring classified FBI files on some 400 prominent Republicans?) It doesn't make it right, but it does make this issue a tempest in a teapot.

cupcake

cupcake

I'm lost
July 2002

FEB 07, 2007 05:39 PM

The last two posters are so unaware of what this administration IS, that there is no easy way to add on to this message string, without insulting them. I guess I already did. Tough luck.

RileyStClair

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

FEB 07, 2007 05:42 PM

wait, the party in power's justice dept investigates way more politicians of THE OTHER PARTY t han their own?

GET OUT!

this just in: fire is hot.

cupcake

cupcake

I'm lost
July 2002

FEB 07, 2007 06:51 PM

yourfashionwar said:
wait, the party in power's justice dept investigates way more politicians of THE OTHER PARTY t han their own?

GET OUT!

this just in: fire is hot.



try reading - it won't hurt you - really

umanam

umanam

San Francisco, CA
October 2005

FEB 07, 2007 07:07 PM

karma is always fair, considering time and space and the dimension of mind, because there is always an aspect of yourself who is watching yourself

AlphaGoon

AlphaGoon

Saint Paul, MN
November 2006

FEB 07, 2007 07:09 PM

I'd be really interested to see where that "1 in 10,000" statistic came from, because I'm guessing it was someone's ass.

Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

FEB 07, 2007 07:26 PM

AlphaGoon said:
I'd be really interested to see where that "1 in 10,000" statistic came from, because I'm guessing it was someone's ass.



If I did my math right, there's something like a one in a million chance of flipping a coin a hundred times and getting exactly 79 heads. So I don't imagine getting 79% or worse is about 1/10,000. And if democrats made up 50% of the sample, a flip of a coin is a good example.

And the sample is three times what I used, so the odds are even less than what I got.

Where's Flux?

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

FEB 07, 2007 07:55 PM

Cigarette said:

AlphaGoon said:
I'd be really interested to see where that "1 in 10,000" statistic came from, because I'm guessing it was someone's ass.



If I did my math right, there's something like a one in a million chance of flipping a coin a hundred times and getting exactly 79 heads. So I don't imagine getting 79% or worse is about 1/10,000. And if democrats made up 50% of the sample, a flip of a coin is a good example.

And the sample is three times what I used, so the odds are even less than what I got.

Where's Flux?



No, you're right. It's simple probability.

Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

FEB 07, 2007 07:58 PM

Subrosa said:

Cigarette said:

AlphaGoon said:
I'd be really interested to see where that "1 in 10,000" statistic came from, because I'm guessing it was someone's ass.



If I did my math right, there's something like a one in a million chance of flipping a coin a hundred times and getting exactly 79 heads. So I don't imagine getting 79% or worse is about 1/10,000. And if democrats made up 50% of the sample, a flip of a coin is a good example.

And the sample is three times what I used, so the odds are even less than what I got.

Where's Flux?



No, you're right. It's simple probability.



Whoo! I was right for once! On the CE board, no less! Booya!

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

FEB 07, 2007 08:05 PM

Cigarette said:

Subrosa said:

Cigarette said:

AlphaGoon said:
I'd be really interested to see where that "1 in 10,000" statistic came from, because I'm guessing it was someone's ass.



If I did my math right, there's something like a one in a million chance of flipping a coin a hundred times and getting exactly 79 heads. So I don't imagine getting 79% or worse is about 1/10,000. And if democrats made up 50% of the sample, a flip of a coin is a good example.

And the sample is three times what I used, so the odds are even less than what I got.

Where's Flux?



No, you're right. It's simple probability.



Whoo! I was right for once! On the CE board, no less! Booya!



Well, to be honest, I didn't check your math. But the concept is pretty basic. If you've taken a statistics and probability class at all recently it should be pretty easy to understand.

Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

FEB 07, 2007 08:14 PM

Subrosa said:
Well, to be honest, I didn't check your math. But the concept is pretty basic. If you've taken a statistics and probability class at all recently it should be pretty easy to understand.



I asked the internet.

spyder13

spyder13

San Francisco, CA
October 2006

FEB 07, 2007 08:58 PM

Cigarette said:

Subrosa said:
Well, to be honest, I didn't check your math. But the concept is pretty basic. If you've taken a statistics and probability class at all recently it should be pretty easy to understand.



I asked the internet.



The internet doesn't change the principles of basic statistics and probabilty even if it is an alternate reality.

ericwine

ericwine

Charlotte Hall, MD
January 2007

FEB 07, 2007 09:07 PM

cupcake said:
The last two posters are so unaware of what this administration IS, that there is no easy way to add on to this message string, without insulting them. I guess I already did. Tough luck.



I'm perfectly aware, thank you very much. Insult for insult: if you seriously think a Democratic administration (or for that matter, a different Republican administration) would be more ethical than the current administration, than you're hopelessly naive, at best. It's not an issue of Republican or Democrat, or liberal or conservative or neoconservative. Politicians are politicians.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

featured interviews