The article offers brief comments on the conviction of Martha Stewart and on the voter turnout for the United States democratic primaries, as reported by Curtis Gans of the Study of the American Electorate. In March 2004, a jury convicted Martha Stewart of lying about a 2001 stock sale in which her broker gave her insider information on pharmaceutical maker ImClone. Reading the newspapers, you could be forgiven for thinking that Stewart had done as much damage to U.S. investors as WorldCom bad boys Bernie Ebbers and Scott Sullivan. Stewart may be both a corporate executive and guilty of wrongdoing, but that does not mean she is guilty of corporate wrongdoing. Her case is different from those of Ebbers, Jeff Skilling, or John Rigas, who allegedly used their positions atop WorldCom, Enron, and Adelphia to construct elaborate frauds that enriched not only themselves but their fellow executives--at a steep cost to lower-level employees and the investing public, not to mention the thousands who depended on the services their companies provided. Thanks to the media attention surrounding the Stewart verdict, however, readers may inaccurately conclude that corporate justice, rather than celebrity justice, has been served in this case.