More importantly, he believes it is illegal under Michigan Campaign Finance Law. That got my attention because you would think a respected law professor would know what he is talking about.
And this is all especially relevant because it is exactly what former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick did. Records show he used nearly a million bucks this way before he pled guilty to multiple felonies, and resigned last year.
So Professor Kelman asked Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land for an opinion. She, or rather a bunch of her bureaucrats, just blew him off, saying he had no standing to ask for one.
That made no sense, since he is a citizen, a legal expert and other secretaries of state have been happy to give him opinions on public matters in the past. No sense … unless Secretary Land was trying to duck making a controversial decision.
So after I talked to Professor Kelman, I asked Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox for an opinion. He told me that legally, his opinion would have to be requested by an elected official. So I asked State Senator Gilda Jacobs to do so, and she was happy to oblige.
She formally asked Cox for a ruling. Yesterday, the attorney general finally gave Senator Jacobs his opinion. I don’t know why it took four months, but better late than never.
The ruling is twenty-five pages long, and says politicians can use campaign finance money to defend themselves against criminal charges, but, quote, “only if the expense is an ordinary and necessary business expense of the elected official … and is incurred in carrying out the business of elective office.”
I can understand that, in a case, say, when an officeholder seeks to defend him or herself against a clearly politically motivated lawsuit. But the attorney general said it is not legal to use campaign funds for criminal lawsuits that have nothing to do with an official’s duties. For example, when former Mayor Kilpatrick assaulted a detective and an investigator from the Wayne County Sheriff’s office.
Using campaign funds to defend against those charges was clearly improper, Cox says in a footnote that acknowledges that Professor Kelman brought it to light.
However, the attorney general says it is up to the secretary of state to do something about it. Terri Lynn Land immediately tried to pass the buck again, saying, through a spokesman that she wouldn’t act without a complaint from the public.
Yesterday, Professor Kelman told me he wasn’t overly thrilled with the opinion. Though it is better than nothing, “it still leaves considerable room for campaign spending on criminal defense.“
And yes, he intends to file a complaint with the secretary of state’s office, though, he added, “given Land’s dismal performance to date, there’s no reason to think she’d do the right thing.”
So as of now, my citizenship scorecard reads five stars for Professor Kelman, two for Attorney General Cox, and zero for Secretary Land. And the bottom line is that Michigan Campaign Finance Law clearly needs further reform.
For some reason, Jack Lessenberry always seems reluctant to post web links to primary source material. Here is a link to the AG opinion released yesterday:
http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10317.htm
The opinion seems to me to be good, solid legal writing. With the link, you can review it for yourself. From my own experience, the wait-time of four months for a formal AG Opinion, which can have the force of law under some esoteric legal circumstances, is not an unreasonable length of time. There have been many shorter waits, and some formal opinions that have taken much longer than this one. That pattern goes way back, through the era of Frank Kelley, The Eternal General.
I'm not quite sure why it is that Mr. Lessenberry seems so disappointed that the Secretary of State Land and the AG's office haven't immediately launched a prosecution of Kilpatrick; a reading of this opinion seems to me to offer a sound analysis as to such procedural matters, and a good explanation for the status quo.
Anyway, apart from the apparently congenital need to criticize Republicans for the sound discharge of their duties, this represents good reporting.
I give Mr. Lessenberry three stars; lost points only for failing to provide the original source link, and for pointless attacks on Cox and Land.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 16, 2009 at 03:45 PM