Is anybody else troubled that someone can give a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court $1.5 million for a book deal, but I can't give him a $100 gift?

Here's a spot where FEC monitoring of money flows would be useful. I want to hear what the Justices have to say, so banning book deals seems wrong. But this appears to be an easy way for a single entity to influence a Justice's decisions. I think everyone should have a chance to give Thomas money to influence his decisions just like we do by donating to elected officials' campaigns.

I wonder how Thomas will dispel the appearance of impropriety. If he waits until 2009, he may get impeached.

---Update 2:30 PM CDT---

My commenters seem to think there is no appearance of impropriety. So I guess if you want to buy influence with a non-elected official, offer them a $1.5 million book deal.

I notice that the author never bothers to actually cite those cases where Justice Thomas might be presiding over a case with a tie to Murdoch. If you're going to throw out strawmen, they ought to at least have some legs. If there's an actual example of impropriety, cite it. Otherwise, it's just more liberal handwringing.

"Oh look, the conservatives are tapping into the same money stream we've used for so long! There won't be any money left for the next Bill-Hill series! It's not fair! We need a doctrine!"

Impeach a sitting Justice over a book deal? Please, get real.

This seems a bad decision even by Washington standards. There's no way that Thomas can rule in cases involving Fox News.

You original premise is the problem. A $1.5 million book deal has a quid pro quo that you will provide a book, not a preferrential outcome to a verdict. Your $100 gift does not have a quid pro quo, so what's the intent of the gift?

Considering that Hillary got $8 million for her book deal, and she was just a first lady; I'm not sure why one would consider $1.5 million to be out of line for a Justice, 7 years later. Hillary obviously wasn't a Senator yet, thus not under ethics rules. Yet it is fair to compare advances for book deals to determine what is fair and proper.

Otherwise, your argument is whether or not Clarence Thomas has the legal right to sell his memoirs while sitting on the bench.

Other problems is having the FEC monitor the Judicial branch. It's the Congress that has oversight of the Judicial Branch in this manner. Thus the FEC would be in violation of Seperation of Powers, and besides, Justices are not elected.

My point is that whether there is quid pro quo or not, it's very hard to show that $1.5 million is the true market price of the book. If it's above, it's violating federal employee giving rules. It creates the appearance of impropriety.

Arguing that FEC should not enforce disclosure is not an argument against some other agency doing so.

I am not opposed to giving, but I think it should be more democratic. I agree that there is plenty of appearance of impropriety throughout politics.

I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to assume that a book deal, whatever the amount of money involved, is a dead lock to preferential treatment in a future case. Doesn't that throw out Thomas' credibility to decide ANY case?

Yes, let's impeach every justice who published a book or made a speech or taught a class. (That would be all nine of them.)

What's worse, I hear that five justices are depending on a foreign country to save their souls! (That would be the Roman Catholics.)

Why is it so hard to show that $1.5M is the "true market price of the book"? If the publisher makes a profit on the book, that would certainly seem like a pretty good argument in favor of this price, though I grant you that if the publisher loses money that wouldn't necessarily be a good argument against--there's naturally an element of risk in publishing any book. Still, since the book seems to be selling well, there's a good chance it will end up in the black, and that ought to satisfy any rational critic.

It's straightforward to cook the books and show a profit when there is a loss. Maybe there is no appearance of impropriety. Wow. I guess I should offer my favorite non-elected officials book deals.

So Sam, if the book sells well(currently #7 on Amazon), does that then help justify the $1.5M advance? Therefore, your "appearance of impropriety" would decline with increasing sales?

There's a principled stance.

You know, it just might be that the advance is within the current market rate for a decent book. Maybe a comp study is called for, not impeachment.

And Karl, you made me laugh with your comment. Just how many cases involving Fox News are before the Court? And, why limit it to just Fox? What about the WSJ? News Corp in general? Hell, what about cases involving anything Democratic, since Murdoch is also a contributor Her Highness' campaign?

This is a tempest in a teapot.

"My commenters seem to think there is no appearance of impropriety. So I guess if you want to buy influence with a non-elected official, offer them a $1.5 million book deal."

Right, and then to conceal your tracks, make sure the official's book becomes a NYT bestseller and makes you a huge pile of dough.

For heaven sakes, how obvious can it be that this whole comment is premature? Suppose the book stays at the top of the charts for the next three months, will the $1.5M still have the appearance of a payoff then? How about after 6 months at the top? Would a year be enough for you? Will it make a difference if it goes through ten printings in its first year and then comes out in paperback? How about if it goes through ten printings a year for two years? Five years? You're talking through your hat because you have no way of knowing how well the book is going to sell.

Why don't you just wait until the book stops vanishing from the shelves and gets remaindered, and THEN crunch the numbers, and THEN come back and tell us it couldn't possibly have made the publisher enough to justify $1.5M. Then you'll have something to talk about. So far, there's really no need to give you any answer beyond "phooey".

Why do you think so many Senators and Congresscritters have these books written for themselves in the first place? Book deals as a way funnel money to members of Congress has been around for decades. Just ask Jim Wright.

(And unlike almost every critic of Wright's book, who've never actually seen it, I have an autographed copy.)

OK, where is the cutoff for books and payments then? No advances, only money from actual profits get paid to the writer / subject of said book? Who decides the percentage paid on those profits?

OK, where is the cutoff for books and payments then? No advances, only money from actual profits get paid to the writer / subject of said book? Who decides the percentage paid on those profits?

If you're a sitting justice on the Supreme Court, you don't get to enter into these sorts of contracts. That'd be where I'd draw the line.

Gee, Karl, why stop at stifling Justices? I think we should include Senators, Congressmen, Presidents (past and present), VPs, cabinet officers, pages, interns, civil servants, FBI janitors, bloggers, peanut harvesters, and turd-twirlers.

But we'll let the MSM do them. Oh, wait, I already excluded turd-twirlers. Sorry, there's no one left.

I'd say your line in the sand is awfully sharp. Care to reconsider? Hmmm, probably not. It's okay to silence conservatives, just let the libs keep blathering, huh?

Hypocracy suits you.

My point is that whether there is quid pro quo or not, it's very hard to show that $1.5 million is the true market price of the book. If it's above, it's violating federal employee giving rules. It creates the appearance of impropriety.

Arguing that FEC should not enforce disclosure is not an argument against some other agency doing so.

Sam,

I use to have a healthy amount of respect for you, but your arguments here have left me wondering.

First, the concept you haven't addressed is the judges' ability to recuse themself from a case. This isn't the first time a judge has ever received payments and services from someone that could potentially come before them in a court of law. So until that event happens and Justice Thomas doesn't recuse himself; you are ignoring centuries of precedence covering this subject. Damn, read the original moronic article you linked to... even it mentions recusal.

Second, why is unallowed to point out the idiocy of using the FEC as oversite? You brought it up. Indeed you brought up impeachment for an offense that is not impeachable. So if you make dumb comments, expect to be called on them.

Besides, I did suggest another branch of the government that has proper oversite. Seriously, you are concerned about a $1.5 million book deal, but not concerned about proper balance of power? Or to turn a phrase:

"So I guess if you want the President to manipulate the Judicial Branch beyond the power to appoint, simply give them the power to impeach as well."

I am pretty sure Thomas is being paid a fair advance, but it would be straightfoward to pay someone else (say, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) a big hunk of cash for a book deal and have the thing not be scrutinized or even questioned. Go to it!

I like monitoring because then we get to know who was bought by whom--strike that--who is helping the General get the word out to the public.

Recusal doesn't really work. Suppose I work a book deal with said General and tell him how I feel about politics. It would be just like a campaign contribution. No quid pro quo except for the text of the book. But the General might be influenced.

There's no way to stop money from influencing non-elected officials. The goal should be to let them be influenced by all constituencies and to track the level of influence so competing constituencies will know where to focus.

The General doesn't enjoy the same protections provided by the US Constitution to a Supreme Court Justice. This isn't trivial nit pick, but rather very mundane to protecting balance of power in a civilized society.

On a similar note, why are you insisting that only the government can provide proper oversight of this perceived injustice? Again, so far Justice Thomas has not committed a crime or anyother impropriety. If however, he fails to recuse himself from a case which directly involves Rupert Murdoch or one of Murdoch's interest, then Justice Thomas should be held accountable. How would you do that? You would petition your legislator to draft articles of impeachment against the Justice. Fortunately, in our free and liberal socieiy, you can do that. You can do it now if you like, but I think you might get more support if you do it later when it matters.

Gee, Karl, why stop at stifling Justices? I think we should include Senators, Congressmen, Presidents (past and present), VPs, cabinet officers, pages, interns, civil servants, FBI janitors, bloggers, peanut harvesters, and turd-twirlers.

I see good reason to include any public servant (certain Senators, for example) in a position of power in my proscription. If they want to get rich off of book deals or other major investments, then they can do it when they aren't so employed. One of the problems with a book deal like this is that it provides easy routes for a transfer of funds from a hidden third party. The publisher pays the author directly, but the third party guarantees a certain number of sales. Eg, if you can't sell your books in a certain base amount (eg, enough to cover that $1.5 million payment you got), then the hidden party will buy the remainder.

On a similar note, why are you insisting that only the government can provide proper oversight of this perceived injustice? Again, so far Justice Thomas has not committed a crime or anyother impropriety. If however, he fails to recuse himself from a case which directly involves Rupert Murdoch or one of Murdoch's interest, then Justice Thomas should be held accountable. How would you do that? You would petition your legislator to draft articles of impeachment against the Justice. Fortunately, in our free and liberal socieiy, you can do that. You can do it now if you like, but I think you might get more support if you do it later when it matters.

My take is that we don't know all the parties involved in this transaction. If Big Oil or the Chinese Communists buy five million copies, using dummy corporations of course, of Justice Thomas's book down the road, then the Justice should also recuse himself from such cases as well. But how will we know that?

"I see good reason to include any public servant (certain Senators, for example) in a position of power in my proscription."

Hmm. "Position of power". Now, THERE'S a clearly defined group.

Karl, you've taken the plunge down the slippery slope. There is no in-between. Sorry, your argument fails the basic intelligence test. Happy bottom-feeding.

The rest of us will continue to believe in freedom of speech, pursuit of happiness, and the ability to judge someone on their actions, not on their suppositions.

Dave G, too bad you can't figure out when someone is a public servant in a position of power nor what is wrong with someone like a Justice or a Senator taking millions of dollars on the side while they make decisions that effect the lives of hundreds of millions.

I think there should be FEC-style disclosure, but not enforced by FEC. Enforce it via order of the Supreme Court or whatever the appropriate way to get a judicial regulation passed is. Just put their tax returns on the web and let the people figure out who's paying them.

Dave G, too bad you can't figure out when someone is a public servant in a position of power nor what is wrong with someone like a Justice or a Senator taking millions of dollars on the side while they make decisions that effect the lives of hundreds of millions.

Hey Karl, what would you call James Hanson, a civil servant working for NASA, but receiving funds to push a political agenda?