The BNA Money & Politics Enquirer reports that a judge has identified misconduct in the prosecution of Geoffrey Feiger on contribution laundering violations. Here’s the lede for those of you not so fortunate as to have an institutional subscription (or $15):
A federal court in Michigan has concluded that there was “some evidence” of government misconduct in the prosecution of Goeffrey Fieger, a prominent Democratic attorney accused of funneling $127,000 in illegal contributions to the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards (U.S. v. Fieger, E.D. Mich., Criminal No. 07-20414, ruling 1/24/08).
In a ruling handed down Jan. 24, the court cited the failure of federal prosecutors in Detroit to notify Justice Department headquarters in Washington before beginning the probe of Fieger. Department procedures require that the Public Integrity Section in DOJ’s Washington headquarters must be informed before prosecutors open new campaign finance cases. This is done partly to allow DOJ to notify the Federal Election Commission, which conducts most campaign finance investigations, the court said.
Would a successful renegotiation of a FEC-DOJ Memorandum of Understanding help? One wonders. Prosecutors who refuse to follow the FPEO handbook might well neglect to follow an MOU, too. I recall attending a DOJ workshop and listening as the head of Public Integrity emplasized to the attending AUSAs the importance of coordinating their cases with Public Integrity. And I remember something less than a warm response from attendees.
Bob Biersack, that is. Email me, babe. My 411 ain’t doing the trick, apparently.
A FOTS forwards this story about California NAACP majordomo and longtime liberal fixture Alice Huffman’s career as a consultant, well-compensated, for Indian tribes.
Huffman’s firm, AC Public Affairs, operates out of the same office as the state NAACP. State records show it received about $40,000 in December from a campaign account funded by the tribes seeking compacts – the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation.
Despite the “appearance” problems with this, Huffman defends her role thus:
She continues her consulting work because “campaigning and politics is my livelihood,” she said. “That’s how I make my money to buy my Gucci handbags and other things that enhance my standard of living.”
Sure, if her position with the NAACP is unpaid, she will need to earn money somehow. Here’s a radical notion - why not PAY the President of the NAACP and then limit that person’s ability to earn outside income. You know, to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Like we do for members of Congress.
You’re there, sitting at the casino bar, nursing a Bloody Mary, when a significant number of folks take a hike down to the ballrooms. To caucus for Obama.
I’d really like to see this.
The Supreme Court, Scalia writing the majority opinion, concluded that New York law directing parties to select their nominees for Supreme Court Justice via convention is permissible under the First Amendment. (Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link)
In reading Scalia’s opinion, I am struck by the “political question” tone lurking beneath. Instead of holding that this is the kind of issue assigned to the political branches to resolve, of course, the result is couched in terms of the associational liberty of political parties. But are we developing a line of doctrine that is essentially the old political question doctrine dressed up in First Amendment terms? Seems like maybe.
I now own a lovely little booklet, titled “Practical Directions for the Holding of Elections and the Canvassing of Votes Under the New Election Laws” for New York City election inspectors, from 1849.
Among its other delights, it explains that under New York law, no person shall be permitted to vote “who shall make or be interested directly or indirectly in any bet or wager, depending upon the result of any election, at which such person shall offer to vote.”
No, that’s not a review of the French Laundry, or even Ratatouille. It’s the Nevada Democratic Caucus!
Happening on Saturday January 19, the caucus pits national bruisers like AFSCME and the teachers against local heavyweight the Culinary Union. Think it is Clinton v. Obama? Think again. Locals fear (respect?) the Culinary Union. You all are about to see why.
So the local teachers have sued, complaining that the at-large caucus sites in union hotels, implemented “for the convenience of strip workers who are at work Saturday” of course, unfairly burden caucus-goers who don’t work at those resorts.
Ya think?
I predict any court’s response to this will be — “So?” But we shall see.
Listen — it isn’t the teachers who should be complaining. Its those folks (who may work Saturdays) who also happen to be barred from entering a gaming establishment licensed by the state (There’s 35 of them… I’d note that’s more than voters in 2007 who lacked Voter ID in Marion County Indiana, but that would be unnecessary).
Who speaks for them? How about the card-counters (not included within this set) who are nevertheless typically bounced from the hotel once their little toe hits the carpet? The teachers are complaining about a mere relative inequity in expected turnout. Black-listed folks have a stronger case, it seems to me. At least, won’t they be chilled in exercising their caucus rights?
Now, I will allow that some of these individuals may be Republicans. And, from news reports, it appears the Republicans aren’t too interested in the Nevada GOP caucus. Too bad.
But if just one voter is burdened, the burden is mighty indeed upon that individual, no? Or at least that’s what I’ve heard.
Not really. For one thing, we’re not exactly celebrities. And there’s no claymation involved.
But if you’re a hardcore Voter ID groupie, this radio debate between Wendy Weiser (of the Brennan Center) and yours truly might be of interest.
N.B. The linked file is in the form of an mp3 “podcast.” However you needn’t be an IPod owner to listen to it.
We stood where John Marshall told us to stand. No one argued with John Marshall, no sir.
And then we waited.
After argument, we enjoyed the sun with our clients, co-counsel, and those people over there with all the broadcasting equipment
