I should stop being surprised, but I guess that is where Barack and I are similar. I "hope" that the media will start to "change" in an effort to remain viable in the long term, but alas my hope for change may never pan out.
The Dispatch was the lone voice over two weeks ago to correctly call "FOUL!", but even they have fallen silent since no other media outlet regarded this as news.
I waited to do this blog post because 1) Eye Spy would have done a better job, but Eye Spy is very busy these days and 2) I wanted to let at least two weeks pass to see if anyone else would write about and/or legal authorities would start to investigate the potential laws that may have been broken (or at least bent really, really far) either on a state or federal level (or both...yikes).
I digress.
First of all, great article 15 days ago Darrel Rowland !!!
Here it is if you missed it:
Brunner office-supply purchase raises drawerful of questions
By DARREL ROWLAND
The Columbus Dispatch
Published: June 21, 2009
Edition: Home Final
Section: Editorial & comment
Page: 05G
Some would say Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is one of the
most intelligent statewide officials to hold office in recent years.
You may not agree with all of her ideas, but the attorney and former
judge usually displays a clear understanding of the law.
That's why it's so baffling when she says she doesn't understand the
fuss over apparent discrepancies with her campaign finances.
Ohio's chief elections official and U.S. Senate hopeful might have violated federal election regulations.
The dust-up revolves around the purchase of office equipment, supplies and cell phones, valued by the Brunner camp at $15,000.
There would be no problem if she had simply bought the material through
her U.S. Senate campaign. She formed the federal committee in
mid-February, immediately after dissolving the state committee she had
used for years. (Ohio law doesn't allow a candidate to have both at the
same time.)
But she didn't, and this is where it gets tricky.
Just days before
Brunner's state campaign was shut down, it was tapped to pay for the
equipment purchases. And now her federal campaign wants to use it.
(Whether it is already using it, no one will say for sure.)
One big problem: Federal election regulations bar the direct transfer
of money or assets from state campaigns to federal campaigns, because
they have different rules.
So how is this legal?
That's where things get really murky.
Enter a mysterious agreement -- which Brunner refuses to make public --
between her Senate campaign committee and her husband's law firm,
referred to as "the prior landlord," since her campaign headquarters
used to be located there.
Simply put, the "the prior landlord" says it's OK for the Senate
campaign to use the new equipment, as long as the campaign agrees to
donate $15,000 to three charities picked by Brunner. (At least that's
what the campaign says the agreement says.)
Huh?
The campaign has offered no explanation about how her husband's law
firm has the right to give his wife's state campaign equipment to
anybody.
It seems they're saying that the brand-new equipment was
"abandoned" at Rick Brunner's law firm when the state campaign was
dissolved. So does that give "the prior landlord" the right to dispose
of the material, just like your landlord could get rid of that old
fridge you left behind when you moved out of the apartment?
And now, almost four months after the fact, Brunner's Senate campaign
is asking the Federal Election Commission for an advisory opinion on
whether what it's already done is OK.
(Interestingly, the June 11
letter to the FEC doesn't mention the thousands of dollars worth of
equipment purchased just before Brunner's state campaign was
terminated; the implication is that this was just stuff they had lying
around and needed to get rid of.)
Maybe there's a simpler explanation for all this, but so far Brunner
and her campaign refuse to offer one.
Instead, they say the matter has
gotten improper attention and that her family has been unfairly dragged
into the muck. (For the record, Rick Brunner's law firm has gotten
nearly $100,000 from his wife's state campaign.)
At times, this dance approaches the level of absurdity.
Brunner's
campaign manager and her official campaign spokeswoman won't speak
about this issue, referring us to a not-yet-hired spokesperson who will
speak only off-the-record about the secret agreement between Brunner's
husband and Brunner's campaign committee that Brunner says she knew
nothing about and will not make public.
I don't see why there'd be any questions, do you?
Judge Brunner probably would've had a few, especially in this supposed
Age of Transparency.
As we have seen many times over the years in the
Buckeye State, how candidates campaign is often a good indicator of how
they will govern.
So now the public gets to be the judge of whether it deserves a full
explanation from Ohio's top elections official, who wants us to make
her one of the most powerful people in the world.
-------------------------------------------------
So where does that leave us?
On the federal side the FEC has oversight and they have not yet replied to my email. Shocker.
On the state side the Attorney General, the Secretary of State and the Ohio Elections Commission all have jurisdiction, but I'm assuming sending emails to those three entities & getting anything except a cookie cutter email would be about as likely as me winning the lottery and getting struck by lightning in the same day.
It is kind of funny when you think about it though. Cordray has kind of been the punching bag lately in dem politics. If he has read any Sun Tzu or Macchiavelli lately he might be pondering a move here. She is a potential threat to his Gubernatorial bid in 2014 and if she were to have a serious legal problem crop up with this situation that stinks to high heaven (see that...no cussing) it could damage her.
My guess is Cordray will keep his powder dry. The only person he probably really wants to push down a flight of stairs is Kevin "blame everything on Rich Cordray" Boyce. At least if he pushes Kevin down a flight of stairs it would be the FIRST time he was actually to blame for something Boyce accused him of doing. If you don't know what I'm talking about then read this article below from the DDN:
As far as inquiring to Jennifer Brunner as to whether or not Jennifer Brunner is guilty of anything...nope...think I'll skip that one. I'm pretty sure she would say she is not guilty, but somehow Jon Husted made her buy all of that office equipment. Bad Jon Husted! Bad!
We can't really rely on the Ohio Elections Commission either because if all of Ray Miller's transgressions only warrant a $1,000 fine then I'm sure if they went through an exhaustive investigation of Brunner they would find out that she was guilty and fine her $50.
It could (in a world where Jen Brunner had an R beside her name instead of a D) end up in the Franklin County Prosecutor's office if anyone ever paid attention to all of this ever again, but I sincerely doubt this thing would ever get that far because someone would have to INVESTIGATE this prior to it ever moving any further than Rowland's excellent column 15 days ago.
I was positive I would at least see something clever about all of this on the ORP website ( http://www.ohiogop.org/ ) but if anything about Brunner potentially breaking state or federal laws was on that website I completely missed it.
Hopefully someone, somewhere at some point in time will poke around on this issue again.
See Barack. I do have hope.
Comments