The Constitution's "speech and debate" clause is one of the main defenses proferred by laywers for Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) who is facing federal corruption charges including money laundering, conspiracy and wire fraud.   The prosecutors in the case have aggressively argued against use of that defense.  We agree.  It's not a get out of jail free card for members of Congress:

In extensive filings, prosecutors said they are not relying on his legislative acts to prove their case.

They also said that Renzi's lawyers were seeking to expand the breadth of the speech or debate clause beyond a scope that the Supreme Court and appellate courts have granted.

Renzi's defense team has contended that "the speech or debate clause protection is absolute" - that the constitutional clause provides a privilege immunizing the congressman from prosecution concerning virtually any of his functions related to the legislative process.

But in their motion, prosecutors said, "Renzi claims that he is entitled to dismissal of every count of the indictment" on the basis that evidence of legislative acts was introduced in the grand jury, and "that the government 'must necessarily' introduce evidence of legislative acts to support its theory of the case at trial."

However, they said the Supreme Court has applied speech or debate protection only to "legislative acts," and in a situation that "expressly covers actual 'speech or debate in either House.'"

Other legislative activities "must be an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes" in congressional proceedings concerning proposed legislation, activities "essential to legislating," the prosecutors said.