Document Actions
Tuesday: Numbers and Figures
posted at 2008-04-08 23:27 | Last modified 2008-04-09 08:53
Pencil it in
This afternoon, the NC Dems announced that Obama and Clinton will debate at Raleigh’s RBC Center April 27th. As it turns out, that may be a bit premature.
Over at Dome, Ryan Teague Beckwith says no one confirmed it with Obama’s campaign, so there’s no word yet whether the date will stick. So consider it speculative for now – but if you want to go, keep an eye on the NC Dem website, just in case.
Dueling polls
There’s nothing unusual about pollsters disagreeing with each other, but it is a tad unusual to find them as far apart as they are now.
Yesterday’s PPP tracker puts Dem gubernatorial candidate Bev Perdue a statistically significant 8 points ahead of her chief rival, Richard Moore. It also shows Dem US Senate hopeful Kay Hagan well ahead of her chief challenger, Jim Neal.
But the latest Survey USA poll (commissioned by WTVD) paints a very different picture: dead heats in both races. The results look a lot like McClatchy’s recent poll data, which caught lots of flack from both PPP's Tom Jensen and UNC's Leroy Towns.
So okay, poll experts--who’s right? Weigh in here.
Running the numbers
I’ve been thinking a lot about Wright’s sentencing yesterday. Specifically about how steep it was.
Wright was sentenced t0 70 to 95 months. The low end, 70 months, is the bare minimum he’ll serve, according to Wake ADA David Sherlin.
DA Colon Willoughby said after the trial that Wright might help himself by cooperating with authorities, but Willoughby added he doesn’t think anyone else was involved in Wright’s crime, so there may not be much wiggle room.
By the way, if you missed my story on it this morning, it's here.
Corruption for comparison’s sake
Wright's the third former state lawmaker convicted of corruption in the past two years. So why did he get the longest sentence?
What they got:
- 70 months: Wright's state sentence for three felony counts: obtaining a $150,000 mortgage under false pretenses, plus pocketing $7400 in charitable donations from Anheuser-Busch and Astra-Zeneca.
- 63 months: The federal sentence of former state House Speaker Jim Black, who pleaded guilty last year to corruption. Black admitted buying a vote and taking a half-million-dollar loan under the table from lobbyist Don Beason to finance a real estate deal. The state gave Black a million-dollar fine, which he could afford to pay (thanks in no small part to Beason’s “financing”) and 10 concurrent months, but no additional jail time.
- 48 months: the federal sentence for former state Representative Michael Decker, who admitted selling his vote – and with it, the Speakership of the NC House – for $50,000 and a job for his son. Presiding Judge James Dever called this case an "epic betrayal."
What they got out of it:
- Black: A downtown Charlotte property, financed with Beason's bridge loan, plus tens of thousands of dollars garnered from multiple bathroom meetings.
- Decker: $50,000. His son did okay, too.
- Wright: No building and maybe a few thousand in cash.
So how is it that fraud in the service of buying a house nets you more prison time than fraud in the service of buying the House? Seriously – is it really more heinous to deceive a banker than a voter?
All apologies
Part of the explanation might lie in minimum sentencing guidelines. As Judge Henry Hight pointed out to defense attorney Doug Harris, the bank fraud charge on which Wright was convicted is a class C felony with mandatory state jail time of least 59 months. That charge made up the majority of Wright’s sentence.
Even so, Wright ended up with 70 months, not 59. Why? Because he also faced sentences for two counts of converting charitable contributions – and Hight added on those sentences as consecutive, instead of concurrent.
Why Wright got the short end of the consecutive/concurrent stick is open for debate. But it might have had something to do with his refusal to take any responsibility whatsoever for the actions that led to his conviction.
Like Black and Decker, Wright had many opportunities to say he was sorry. But unlike his peers, he opted not to take advantage of them. Even after the verdict, when Hight was preparing to announce Wright’s sentence, he asked the eight-term lawmaker if he had anything to say first. It was the perfect opening for an apology. But Wright answered, “No, your honor.”
It’s hard to say whether an apology would have made a difference. But it’s also hard to imagine how it would’ve hurt his case.
Comments? Drop me a line.
