The Delaware Way just stinks.
“We fervently hope that there will be a cultural reform in Delaware to eliminate any remnants of the cynical ‘pay to play’ practices that have motivated some aspects of the problems revealed in this investigation.”
Good luck with that, E. Norman.
After an investigation of more than two years that revealed allegations of wrongdoing by Gov. Jack Markell’s campaign and others, special prosecutor E. Norman Veasey declined to prosecute the public officials…
Nancy Willing says it:
Lucky for a handful of sitting pols that the statute of limitations on their pay-to-play schenanigans ran out…..or is it? Perhaps most damning for Markell is how overlapping monies from Keith Stoltz et. al. played out (see below). His spokesman claims that Stoltz sent along a ledger sheet with invisible columns that nobody could possibly have seen. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. GAH!
As AlexD said:
“Elections mattered in the past. Elections matter in the future.”
No they didn’t, and no they won’t unless money and politics are forever separated. Otherwise it will be more of the same: poor planning leading to environmental, cultural and economic degradation.
Oh, by the way…
The Green Party does not accept donations from corporations, political action committees (PACs), 527(c) organizations or soft money. The party’s platforms and rhetoric harshly criticize any corporate influence and control over government, media, and society at large.
“certain words used by the candidate or his agents were coded references to a shared knowledge about how contribution laws could be circumvented,”
But none of the public officials will face charges, Veasey said in his report. And no charges will be filed against campaign workers or donors, he said.
- “Obtaining the necessary information does not appear to have been a common practice among campaigns in Delaware.”
- Investigators found no indication the Markell campaign asked any questions…
- “Yet, again, there is no evidence that the campaign made any further inquiry regarding such ownership, attributed the contributions to the 50-percent owner, or returned the contributions.”
- The ignorant are excused…
- “…it appears that Stoltz was responding to repeated requests for contributions from Markell, Stoltz sought and relied in good faith on advice from the Markell campaign regarding the law governing contributions by entities, and the campaign may have inaccurately stated the law. The investigation found no evidence that Stoltz knowingly violated any campaign finance laws.”
- Those with poor spreadsheet skills are excused…
- Markell spokesman Jonathon Dworkin said the campaign was not aware of the ownership information that Stoltz included in the spreadsheet because it was in a column that was not easily read…did not realize that the spreadsheet that was sent to it had a column that was hidden.”
- “Thus, the campaign failed to make appropriate inquiries, and in fact accepted an entity contribution without proper attribution under [Delaware law], even where it had information suggesting that the contribution was improper.”
- Someone in Markell’s campaign told him how to use the donor scheme, Zimmerman told Veasey’s investigators.
- “Zimmerman told investigators that a member of a candidate’s campaign staff told him that ‘reimbursing was the way to do it,’” the report states. But Zimmerman “could not identify that person during interviews with investigators,” the report states, so the allegation was not pursued.
- Tigani told investigators that he believed a candidate, which the report did not name, must have known about his reimbursement scheme – as did others. Tigani said the candidate or his agents asked him to raise large sums of money that he delivered as checks to the campaign. Tigani also said the candidate and his representatives spoke in a way that suggested they knew contribution laws could be circumvented, the report said.