Shadows on High: Fix Ohio Election Ethics!
|
|
STRICKLAND TRANSITON TO OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION: GET A BACKBONE!
There are times, Shadows on High needs to go in depth. So, today Shadows asks the pressing question, if a complaint is filed in the Ohio Elections Commission - does it really exist?
The Ohio Elections Commission, famous for what it doesn't do, dismissed nearly every false-statement complaint from the 2004 election, according to a recent analysis by The Plain Dealer.
The true depth of the commission's ineffectiveness, however, is best illustrated by a case recently withdrawn by the complainant himself.
Dennis Lieberman v. David Goodman, et al was scheduled for a hearing on January 18, but those who once pressed the case withdrew it - even though it relied on unusually clear and unprecedented evidence. Why dismiss a slamdunk? How about, a belief that the commission probably wouldn't take action anyway.
The case centered on a $10,000 donation that Sen. Goodman received in his unsuccessful effort to unseat Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy. Lieberman argued that Goodman and his campaign knowingly concealed the true source of the $10,000 and his evidence included a memo written by Goodman's own fundraiser, Kyle Sisk (see above link).
- Goodman admitted that he's read the memo which laid out a scheme for hiding donations "so they don't show up on your report.''
Strickland's Transition Report Throws Up its Hands: Time for an Election Truth Squad
A group of experts who evaluated the Commission at the behest of Gov. Strickland concluded that the Commission is ineffective, under-funded and understaffed. (See Full Report) The experts also recommended wholesale changes.
Among the most noteworthy:
"Change the Commission from an adjudicatory role to a truth-declaring role.''
If ever a case cried out for a declaration of truth, it's this one.
- Goodman says he didn't intentionally conceal any donations. It's just a coincidence, he said, that the Montgomery County Republican Party gave the Ohio Republican Party $10,000 -- and the state party gave his campaign $10,000 on the very same day. It's also just a coincidence, Goodman said, that this occurred after Sisk's memo suggested that donations be funneled through party accounts "so they don't show up on your report.''
- Brash and blunt, the memo advised Goodman whom to ask for donations, how much to request and how to conceal some of the campaign cash. It instructs Goodman to talk to state party chair Bob Bennett about his race and about assistance from the state party's State Candidate Fund.
"Try for 10K….'' the memo says.
- The same memo suggests that Goodman ask Sen. Jeff Jacobson, then-head of the Montgomery County GOP, "for 15-25K before the end of the year.''
- And finally, it insists that donors should be instructed to "do $ to County Candidate funds around the state so they don't show up on your report. This should be an option for everyone.''
This "option'' allowed candidates to indirectly receive more than the $2,500 that individuals could give per election cycle and the $5,000 that political action committees could give. At the time, county accounts could give much more, making them a convenient place to temporarily park money, then pass it through to candidates.
Discredited Fundraiser Advises Goodman to Launder Donations
Goodman appears to have followed much of Sisk's advice since some on the proposed donor list gave in the proposed amounts.
- The Montgomery County GOP didn't give the "15-25K'' that Sisk suggested, but did give $10,000 to the Ohio Republican Party's State Candidate Fund on Dec. 29, 2003 - right before the end of the year.
- That very same day, the Ohio Republican Party's State Candidate Fund gave $10,000 to The Committee to Elect David Goodman.
Coincidence?
According to Lieberman's complaint, this was no coincidence. This was "Goodman and agents of the Committee to Elect David Goodman'' following Sisk's advice to conceal his donations through other accounts "so they don't show up on your report.''
While Goodman showed a proclivity for following Sisk's fund-raising instructions, his response to Lieberman's complaint shows no similar proclivity for keeping his story straight.
In a sworn affidavit included in the case:
- Goodman says: "The (Sisk) memorandum attached to the Complaint was repudiated by me as soon as I saw it.''
The record shows: Goodman did not repudiate the memo as soon as he saw it since campaign finance reports suggest that he followed much of Sisk's script.
- Goodman also did not repudiate the memo in May 2004 when he learned that reporters from the Cleveland Plain Dealer had obtained a copy of it. According to the May 30, 2004, article:
[Goodman initially defended Sisk, calling him 'a good fund-raiser.' The lawyer-legislator said he did not recall Sisk's advice to park money in county GOP accounts, and he would not comment about whether the practice is legal.
"I've never seen any bad tactics, I guess you would say,'' Goodman said. "If I did, he wouldn't be working for me.'']
Five days later, Goodman fired Sisk but did not list the inappropriate memo as the reason. Instead, he told the Plain Dealer:
["This could be a continuing distraction, and I wanted to make sure we focused on the issues.'']
Could it be: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire - you judge in Goodman's own words!
What is clear is that Goodman did not repudiate the memo in August 2004 when the Columbus Dispatch asked about it. According to the article, Goodman said:
["I have been upfront and open about every donation. I did not follow any of this advice.'']
- Goodman says: "No one working for me or for my campaign committee has authority to do what that memorandum proposed.''
The record shows: Someone apparently had the authority since campaign finance reports show that many of Sisk's recommended donors gave in the recommended amounts. Goodman himself said he asked Jacobson for money. According to the Sept. 10, 2004, Dispatch:
[Asked this week about the Dec. 29 transactions, Goodman said he asked Jacobson for financial assistance last year but never discussed laundering Montgomery County money through the state GOP.]
- Goodman says: "Nothing in the complaint alleges such an understanding or agreement between the Montgomery County Republican Party and the Ohio Republican Party.''
The record shows: He's right. The complaint alleges that "Goodman and agents of the Committee to Elect David Goodman'' are responsible for the concealment - not the Montgomery County Republican Party and the Ohio Republican Party. Nice try, Dave.
- Goodman says: Complaints must be "based on personal knowledge.'' And this one "does not claim to have any personal knowledge, and has cited no specific source of personal knowledge or any agreement between the Montgomery County Republican Party and the Ohio Republican Party to earmark a contribution for the benefit of my campaign committee.''
The record shows: A secret memo written by the candidate's own fund-raiser includes advice on how to conceal donations. Public records appear to document some concealment. If the elections commission determines this is not sufficient "personal knowledge,'' then the panel will be saying, in effect, that the only way to achieve personal knowledge is to be present when the scheme is hatched.
In response to similar scandals, lawmakers already have outlawed county state candidate funds - a tacit admission that they were being abused by Goodman and other members of Team Householder.
Does the Truth Matter In Ohio Ethics?
The question remains, if laws are passed, appear to be broken or shat upon, the remedying agency is toothless, and the matter dies a drawn out death - what does that say about our Ohio ethics policy?
In the case of Mr. Goodman, as a lawyer, there is the opportunity for the Ohio Supreme Court Disciplinary Council (hint, hint) to consider the merits of his statements and behavior.
But Ohioans must ask themselves whether they are willing to settle for Bob Taft's errant tee times as the high-point of our ethics backbone - while Goodmanesque examples go unabated.
Did Tom Noe take advantage of the system or did the system coddle Tom Noe until his behavior could no longer be ignored?
Perhaps the only one that could ask this very Freel question, would be Mr. Goodman.
(Rothenberg decoder: David Freel is head of the Ohio Ethics Commission)
There are times, Shadows on High needs to go in depth. So, today Shadows asks the pressing question, if a complaint is filed in the Ohio Elections Commission - does it really exist?The Ohio Elections Commission, famous for what it doesn't do, dismissed nearly every false-statement complaint from the 2004 election, according to a recent analysis by The Plain Dealer.
The true depth of the commission's ineffectiveness, however, is best illustrated by a case recently withdrawn by the complainant himself.
Dennis Lieberman v. David Goodman, et al was scheduled for a hearing on January 18, but those who once pressed the case withdrew it - even though it relied on unusually clear and unprecedented evidence. Why dismiss a slamdunk? How about, a belief that the commission probably wouldn't take action anyway.
The case centered on a $10,000 donation that Sen. Goodman received in his unsuccessful effort to unseat Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy. Lieberman argued that Goodman and his campaign knowingly concealed the true source of the $10,000 and his evidence included a memo written by Goodman's own fundraiser, Kyle Sisk (see above link).
- Goodman admitted that he's read the memo which laid out a scheme for hiding donations "so they don't show up on your report.''
Strickland's Transition Report Throws Up its Hands: Time for an Election Truth Squad
A group of experts who evaluated the Commission at the behest of Gov. Strickland concluded that the Commission is ineffective, under-funded and understaffed. (See Full Report) The experts also recommended wholesale changes.
Among the most noteworthy:
"Change the Commission from an adjudicatory role to a truth-declaring role.''
If ever a case cried out for a declaration of truth, it's this one.
- Goodman says he didn't intentionally conceal any donations. It's just a coincidence, he said, that the Montgomery County Republican Party gave the Ohio Republican Party $10,000 -- and the state party gave his campaign $10,000 on the very same day. It's also just a coincidence, Goodman said, that this occurred after Sisk's memo suggested that donations be funneled through party accounts "so they don't show up on your report.''
- Brash and blunt, the memo advised Goodman whom to ask for donations, how much to request and how to conceal some of the campaign cash. It instructs Goodman to talk to state party chair Bob Bennett about his race and about assistance from the state party's State Candidate Fund.
"Try for 10K….'' the memo says.
- The same memo suggests that Goodman ask Sen. Jeff Jacobson, then-head of the Montgomery County GOP, "for 15-25K before the end of the year.''
- And finally, it insists that donors should be instructed to "do $ to County Candidate funds around the state so they don't show up on your report. This should be an option for everyone.''
This "option'' allowed candidates to indirectly receive more than the $2,500 that individuals could give per election cycle and the $5,000 that political action committees could give. At the time, county accounts could give much more, making them a convenient place to temporarily park money, then pass it through to candidates.
Discredited Fundraiser Advises Goodman to Launder Donations
Goodman appears to have followed much of Sisk's advice since some on the proposed donor list gave in the proposed amounts.
- The Montgomery County GOP didn't give the "15-25K'' that Sisk suggested, but did give $10,000 to the Ohio Republican Party's State Candidate Fund on Dec. 29, 2003 - right before the end of the year.
- That very same day, the Ohio Republican Party's State Candidate Fund gave $10,000 to The Committee to Elect David Goodman.
Coincidence?
According to Lieberman's complaint, this was no coincidence. This was "Goodman and agents of the Committee to Elect David Goodman'' following Sisk's advice to conceal his donations through other accounts "so they don't show up on your report.''
While Goodman showed a proclivity for following Sisk's fund-raising instructions, his response to Lieberman's complaint shows no similar proclivity for keeping his story straight.
In a sworn affidavit included in the case:
- Goodman says: "The (Sisk) memorandum attached to the Complaint was repudiated by me as soon as I saw it.''
The record shows: Goodman did not repudiate the memo as soon as he saw it since campaign finance reports suggest that he followed much of Sisk's script.
- Goodman also did not repudiate the memo in May 2004 when he learned that reporters from the Cleveland Plain Dealer had obtained a copy of it. According to the May 30, 2004, article:
[Goodman initially defended Sisk, calling him 'a good fund-raiser.' The lawyer-legislator said he did not recall Sisk's advice to park money in county GOP accounts, and he would not comment about whether the practice is legal.
"I've never seen any bad tactics, I guess you would say,'' Goodman said. "If I did, he wouldn't be working for me.'']
Five days later, Goodman fired Sisk but did not list the inappropriate memo as the reason. Instead, he told the Plain Dealer:
["This could be a continuing distraction, and I wanted to make sure we focused on the issues.'']
Could it be: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire - you judge in Goodman's own words!
What is clear is that Goodman did not repudiate the memo in August 2004 when the Columbus Dispatch asked about it. According to the article, Goodman said:
["I have been upfront and open about every donation. I did not follow any of this advice.'']
- Goodman says: "No one working for me or for my campaign committee has authority to do what that memorandum proposed.''
The record shows: Someone apparently had the authority since campaign finance reports show that many of Sisk's recommended donors gave in the recommended amounts. Goodman himself said he asked Jacobson for money. According to the Sept. 10, 2004, Dispatch:
[Asked this week about the Dec. 29 transactions, Goodman said he asked Jacobson for financial assistance last year but never discussed laundering Montgomery County money through the state GOP.]
- Goodman says: "Nothing in the complaint alleges such an understanding or agreement between the Montgomery County Republican Party and the Ohio Republican Party.''
The record shows: He's right. The complaint alleges that "Goodman and agents of the Committee to Elect David Goodman'' are responsible for the concealment - not the Montgomery County Republican Party and the Ohio Republican Party. Nice try, Dave.
- Goodman says: Complaints must be "based on personal knowledge.'' And this one "does not claim to have any personal knowledge, and has cited no specific source of personal knowledge or any agreement between the Montgomery County Republican Party and the Ohio Republican Party to earmark a contribution for the benefit of my campaign committee.''
The record shows: A secret memo written by the candidate's own fund-raiser includes advice on how to conceal donations. Public records appear to document some concealment. If the elections commission determines this is not sufficient "personal knowledge,'' then the panel will be saying, in effect, that the only way to achieve personal knowledge is to be present when the scheme is hatched.
In response to similar scandals, lawmakers already have outlawed county state candidate funds - a tacit admission that they were being abused by Goodman and other members of Team Householder.
Does the Truth Matter In Ohio Ethics?
The question remains, if laws are passed, appear to be broken or shat upon, the remedying agency is toothless, and the matter dies a drawn out death - what does that say about our Ohio ethics policy?
In the case of Mr. Goodman, as a lawyer, there is the opportunity for the Ohio Supreme Court Disciplinary Council (hint, hint) to consider the merits of his statements and behavior.
But Ohioans must ask themselves whether they are willing to settle for Bob Taft's errant tee times as the high-point of our ethics backbone - while Goodmanesque examples go unabated.
Did Tom Noe take advantage of the system or did the system coddle Tom Noe until his behavior could no longer be ignored?
Perhaps the only one that could ask this very Freel question, would be Mr. Goodman.
(Rothenberg decoder: David Freel is head of the Ohio Ethics Commission)
Comments are closed for this post.