Those With Legal Problems can Gain Advantage from a Lobbyist?

  John Swallow, did you say you referred Jeremy Johnson to a lobbyist, with the thought being the lobbyist might help Johnson out of his legal problems?

   You sent him to a lobbyist, not a lawyer?

   For those who caught the news, this Jeremy Johnson is in court on federal fraud charges, and he was forging an agreement to protect others -- including John Swallow, who perhaps needs no such protection at all -- from prosecution. (Do we know Johnson didn't  include Swallow on the list of the immune just to make Swallow look bad?) 
   Anyway, this news story broke just days after Swallow was sworn in as Utah's attorney general.

   Johnson indicates money was requested to make the legal problems go away. Swallow responds that he did not offer money, nor did he take it. But, he indicates he did refer Swallow to a lobbyist.

   Most strange, to me. If a person is in legal trouble, don't you send them to a good lawyer? Just what is it that a lobbyist is suppose to do? These charges against Johnson, were they going to change if-- if what kind of influence was exerted? Just what kind of influence can a lobbyist offer that a lawyer can't?
   One possible answer, of course, is that they can push for a change in the laws. I understand, however, that Johnson was already under investigation. How is it moral that if you see legal trouble coming, you can buy a lobbyist and, in essence, buy a change in the laws? This might help rich people like Johnson, but it is a system that will do little to help the rest of us.
   Nor should it, obviously. Buying your way out of legal problems should not be the American way.
   Nor from what I am reading is it said the lobbyist was to lobby for new legislation. Somehow, some other way, the lobbyist was to affect the case, helping the legal problems go away.
   This I do not understand. Influence from lobbyists? I do not understand how that has a place in the legal system.
    There are other angles of possible influence peddling to be considered in this story. Johnson contributed to outgoing Attorney General Mark Shurtleff when he was running for the office. That does not mean Shurtleff's office gave him any extra consideration, but it doesn't go unnotice on me that a person who contributed heavily to Shurtleff's campaign later approached that office for help. And, yes, I wonder if he expected his contribution meant he should have some favor. And, yes, I believe many times such contributions do result in the elected official giving more help than would be offered if a political contribution was not in the background.

   And, the news stories say Johnson donated money to the attorney general's Internet Crimes Against Children task force. Now, I'm all for private citizens donating to government, but it is unusual when they do so. People donate to a lot of things, but government usually isn't one of them. Yes, I wonder if Johnson was seeking influence. When did he donate? Before the investigation against him, or after it was underway? The A.G.'s office perhaps perceived no harm in Johnson contributing to a worthy cause. But, in retrospect, perhaps they should have.