Paul,
Decker’s sentence could have important value as a precedent in future corruption cases.
He’s admitted to the most basic form of quid pro quo political payoff: “Give me cash and other goodies, and I’ll vote for you.” For that reason, I understand the judge’s reluctance to cut him any slack.
But the federal prosecutors make sense as well when they recommend leniency. In this case (and in any future unrelated cases), the feds will have a hard time cutting deals if defendants believe they will gain no benefits from cooperating with the investigation.
No one concerned about good government should lose any sleep about Decker spending more time in the slammer. But one hopes the case does not prompt a future federal “target” to say: “I’m not going to help the feds. Even if I cut a deal, the judge could reject it and throw the book at me.”
