Atlanta trial dredges up anchor's past 'mistake'

Despite her hopes to keep it in the past, a Chicago television news anchor's four-year affair with a former mayor of Atlanta is about to be dredged up in federal court.

Marion Brooks, who anchors the 4:30 and 5 p.m. weekday newscasts on NBC-owned WMAQ-Channel 5, has been called to testify for the prosecution in the corruption case against Bill Campbell, who was mayor of Atlanta from 1994 to 2002.

Campbell, 52, is on trial in Atlanta on charges of accepting more than $160,000 in illegal campaign contributions, cash payments, junkets and home improvements in exchange for city contracts. Brooks, 39, reportedly accompanied Campbell, who was married at the time, on about 20 out-of-town trips between 1996 and 2000.

Before joining Channel 5 in 1998, Brooks was an anchor and reporter at WSB-TV in Atlanta.

Brooks, who is expected to take the stand early next month, declined to comment Thursday. In 2001, she issued her only statement on the matter: "My life and my focus are in Chicago now."

But friends say Brooks, who married Florida lawyer Ruye Hawkins last March and is expecting their first child in May, is devastated by the public ordeal she faces.

"Marion realizes she made a mistake, and she's very remorseful for her lack of judgment," a friend said. "She takes full responsibility for her part, and regrets the embarrassment it's causing her husband and family."

Brooks told friends she paid her own way on some of the trips she went on with Campbell, including a trip to Paris prosecutors claim was a gift from a city contractor.

"Marion left Atlanta to start a new life in Chicago," the friend said. "She's worked hard to build her credibility in the market. Chicago is home, and it's where she wants to raise her family."

Channel 5 bosses issued a statement of support for Brooks, calling her "a valued employee" of the station for the last eight years. "We have discussed this matter with her, and we respect her privacy," the statement said. ---------------------------------- Ex-mayor on trial for corruption

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Former Mayor Bill Campbell treated city contractors like "human ATMs," taking tens of thousands of dollars in cash and gifts in exchange for favors, prosecutors told jurors Monday in opening statements at his federal corruption trial.

Campbell's attorneys countered that he would never have abused his elected position because of his lifelong dedication to civil rights and public service.

Before opening statements, U.S. marshals quieted dozens of Campbell supporters who were singing "We Shall Overcome" in the hallway outside the courtroom.

Campbell, once considered a rising star in the national Democratic Party, is charged with racketeering, bribery and fraud.

Money he allegedly pocketed included $50,000 in cash from a strip club operator who wanted help getting a liquor license and $55,000 from a computer company vying for a city contract. Campbell also allegedly accepted an all-expenses-paid trip to Paris worth nearly $13,000 from a water company.

The 2004 indictments against Campbell, 52, were the result of a seven-year federal probe that led to the convictions of 10 city officials or contractors. Some are expected to testify against him.

Prosecutor Sally Yates said that while in office from 1994 to 2002, Campbell and his associates made it clear to contractors that they had to "pay to play."

Yates cited Campbell's bank records that showed a drop-off in ATM withdrawals from his personal bank accounts -- from up to $20,000 a year to a mere $69 a year. She pinned that on Campbell's taking payoffs, and of using city contractors as his "human ATMs."

Lead defense attorney Billy Martin shook Campbell's hand before making his opening remarks.

"Bill Campbell has been waiting for this moment to tell his side of the story," Martin said. "He may have done some things he's not proud of, but it was not bribery and it was not illegal."

Among his shortcomings may have been extramarital affairs while in office, which prosecutors brought up despite assertions that the trial is not about Campbell's personal life.

Defense attorneys urged jurors to leave judgment on those matters to Campbell's wife of 28 years, who sat a few rows behind him.

Martin characterized Campbell as a man who sought a life of public service from age 7, when he integrated the Raleigh, North Carolina, public school system. As a lawyer, he served a stint at the federal Justice Department.

He also served the city for 20 years, as city councilman and then as mayor -- a noble choice for a talented lawyer who didn't need City Hall to earn a six-figure salary, Martin said.

Although Campbell made bad choices in trusting people who committed crimes under his watch, he was not aware of their activities, Martin said. "How does the mayor of any city know what their employees are doing?" he asked the jury.

Media's coverage of scandal exposes bias

By Bruce Bartlett

Jan 24, 2006

One of the things that drives Republicans crazy is the media’s enormous double-standard in how it covers various scandals. While day after day we read on the front pages about how awful it was that a Republican congressman played golf with some lobbyist—as if that is the epitome of unethical behavior—cases of actual criminality by Democrats are buried on the back pages.

For example, on Jan. 12, the New York Times ran yet another article on page one linking Rep. Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, along with two columns about Abramoff on the inside pages. There was absolutely nothing new in any of these articles.

That same day, however, there was real news about a former aide to Rep. William Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, who pleaded guilty the day before to bribing the congressman. The aide, Brett Pfeffer, said that his former boss had demanded a stake in Pfeffer’s business in return for his support. He also alleged that Jefferson had insisted that two of his relatives be put on Pfeffer’s payroll.

Apparently, the FBI has been investigating Jefferson for some time. It has raided his home and wired conversations with him in a sting operation.

So how did the Times handle this hot news? It appeared on page 28. Moreover, the Times couldn’t even be bothered to have one of its own reporters look into the case and instead ran Associated Press wire copy.

Also on Jan. 12, on page five of the second section, the Times reported that a state assemblyman who had formerly headed the Brooklyn Democratic Party was sentenced to jail a day earlier for receiving illegal contributions. The assemblyman, Clarence Norman Jr., faces other charges as well.

On Jan. 23, the Times reported that former Atlanta mayor Bill Campbell is on trial for receiving payoffs of $150,000 from companies doing business with the city, as well as $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions and other gratuities. This article appeared on page 12.

Nowhere in the article was Mr. Campbell’s political affiliation mentioned. I had to do an Internet search to discover that he is a Democrat. Yet the article had plenty of space to discuss at some length what a great mayor Campbell had been.

I’m not saying that these stories should necessarily have been front-page news. But it does seem suspicious when news about Democratic corruption is systematically buried on the back pages, while the front page carries yet another rehash of the DeLay/Abramoff connection containing nothing new.

Ever since Watergate, a key media template has been that the Republican Party is the party of corruption. Thus every wrongdoing of any Republican tends to get page one treatment, while Democratic corruption is treated as routine and buried on the back pages, mentioned once and then forgotten.

Yet any objective study of comparative party corruption would have to conclude that Democrats are far more likely to be caught engaging in it than Republicans. For example, a review of misconduct cases in the House of Representatives since Watergate shows many more cases involving Democrats than Republicans.

Skeptics can go to the web site of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, popularly known as the House Ethics Committee. Click on “historical documents” and go to a publication called “Historical Summary of Conduct Cases in the House of Representatives.” The document was last updated on November 9, 2004 and lists every ethics case since 1798, when Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut attacked Rep. Matthew Lyon of Vermont with a “stout cane” and Lyon responded with a pair of fireplace tongs.

By my count, there have been 70 different members of the House who have been investigated for serious offenses over the last 30 years, including many involving actual criminality and jail time. Of these, only 15 involved Republicans, with the remaining 55 involving Democrats.

I have no doubt that any poll of the American people asking which party had more frequently been the subject of House ethics investigations would show an overwhelming majority naming the Republicans, when the truth is that Democrats, historically, have been far more likely to have been investigated.

The reason is that the liberal media harp on Republican misdeeds monotonously because to them the subject never gets boring. By contrast, Democratic wrongdoing tends to be treated in a perfunctory manner with no follow-up. This imbalance of coverage, which is unrelated to the seriousness of the charges, naturally tends to make people think Republicans are more corrupt, when a reasonable person reviewing all the evidence would have to conclude that Democrats are much more likely to be corrupt.

Of course, another explanation for the disparate treatment may be that Democratic corruption is so commonplace that it really isn’t “news.” Democrats should consider that possibility before launching a campaign against Republican corruption.

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brucebartlett/2006/01/24/183537.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.