Skip to main content

View Diary: Corbett suing NCAA on antitrust grounds (34 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Isn't it simpler to demand that Penn State use non (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnxbrown, nmjardine

    tax monies to pay the fine?

    I'm sure they can find it.

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:30:13 AM PST

    •  Money is fungible. (5+ / 0-)

      If they use non-tax money to cover the fine, then the tax money will just go to whatever they were going to spend that non-tax money on... so the end result is really no different than spending tax money to cover the fine.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:36:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the technicality of fungibility is/isn't built in (0+ / 0-)

        to either the University documents or the laws providing the funds to the University.  

        If fungibility isn't explicitly dictated, then the technical difference is sufficient, as far as legal accounting methods are concerned and, without a violation of University bylaws or of state legislation, that is the only objection that could stand (but doesn't).

        If the funds exist outside of taxpayer funds, then there is no way, legally, to accuse the University of using taxpayers funds in a manner that requires them leaving the state.

        Moreover, the state should not become a shield of questionable nature for this transgressor.

        It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

        by Murphoney on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:56:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  except it is fungible, in reality. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Murphoney, SilentBrook

      Tie the payback to the football program, take 6 million a year and the interest out of a bond and have the football profits pay for that.  How hard is that to do?

       This suit is a stunt to show Corbett  "cares" about his reelection chances.. This the guy that was part of the external cover up as in refusing to pursue a detailed investigation, allowing a slow walk and the evidence to float away (never actively looking for witnesses or following up by his office.) It was a Federal case against Sandusky that was made, not Corbett's  footdragging and obstruction.

      And of course the complete sellout of the state of PA to the fossil trust frackers, including giving away the royalties, allowing their promises to substitute for a catastrophic fund, ignoring the impacts on the water table and withdrawals, allowing dumping and pollution  going forward, and then he claimed Pennsylvania should be happy with a few truck driving jobs and restaurant and hotel jobs. While Exxon will extract a billion dollars in the next couple of years.

      He should be subject to a severe verdict on his malfeasance, but we are not in tumbril France in the  1790's.

      •  If Penn State never spent a dollar beyond its (0+ / 0-)

        borders, there might be an argument of fungibility.  

        Otherwise, it's accounting -- account for the spending of taxpayers funds and we're done.

        It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

        by Murphoney on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:01:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site