|
by Paul R. Hollrah, Lincoln Heritage Institute Senior Fellow
On Wednesday, December 27, 2006, former senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards announced his intention to seek the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. In making his announcement, Edwards journeyed all the way to New Orleans, a place where he was certain to attract a large crowd of his favorite kind of Democrats…the kind of Democrats who don’t know what to do when they find themselves in a city lying more than eight feet below sea level and with a Category 4 hurricane headed in their direction.
The only thing missing from the well-staged scenario was Edwards sitting astride a spirited black stallion, dressed in jodhpurs, linen shirt, and a plantation owner’s broad-brimmed Panama hat, his riding crop tapping rhythmically against his highly polished riding boot.
For experienced observers, Edwards is a political anomaly. When he announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination in 2004, many wondered how a freshman member of the United States Senate, a man who had never before held public office, could accumulate a war chest sufficient to make a credible run for the presidency. How could a relative newcomer to elective politics raise a campaign war chest of more than $31 million when contributions are limited to $2,000 per person?
As a highly successful member of the plaintiff’s bar, having accumulated a fortune of more than $60 million representing medical malpractice clients with junk science and dramatic courtroom summations, Edwards was clearly the favorite of trial lawyers everywhere. And as the money rolled in from plaintiffs’ law firms across the country, enterprising reporters for a Capitol Hill newspaper began to examine Edwards’ Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.
Under provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), individuals are allowed to contribute a maximum of $2,000 to any given candidate for federal office in each primary, primary runoff, and general election. However, in the case of presidential campaigns, where there are no runoff elections and where the general election campaign is financed through taxpayer check-offs, individual contributors are limited to $2,000 to any single candidate.
It is also unlawful for any individual to reimburse a third party for a contribution to a candidate and for any individual to agree to serve as a “conduit” for such a contribution. A cursory examination of early filings from the Edwards campaign indicated what appeared to be massive “bundling” of illegal “conduit” contributions within plaintiffs’ law firms across the country.
To cite just one example, FEC investigators found that Tab Turner, of Turner & Associates in Little Rock, Ark., had “knowingly and willfully” violated provisions of 2 U.S.C. §§ 441b and 441f of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971; and that Michelle Abu-Halimeh, Diana Harcourt, Jennifer Keylon, and Amy Parker, paralegals at the Turner law firm, had violated 2 U.S.C. § 441f by allowing Turner to make $2,000 contributions to Edwards on their behalf.
Delving further into the Turner/Edwards case, FEC investigators found that the Edwards for President Committee and its Treasurer, Julius Chambers, had also violated 2 U.S.C. §§ 441b and 441f, and that Turner law firm employees Brenda Gwin, Neal Turner, and Elizabeth Turner had violated 2 U.S.C. § 441f.
To summarize the case, Tad Turner had agreed to raise a total of $200,000 for the Edwards campaign. However, two Little Rock fundraisers hosted by Turner fell far short of expectations, netting only $73,500. And after reimbursing Turner for the $12,000 that he contributed illegally on behalf of the four paralegals, his brother Neal Turner, and his sister-in-law, Elizabeth Turner, and after paying a civil fine of $9,500, a mere slap on the wrist, the Edwards campaign came away with not $200,000, but $52,000.
Turner, himself, after contributing $2,000 for the Edwards fundraisers, was fined $50,000 for illegally reimbursing his employees and for allowing his employees to work hundreds of hours on arrangements for the fundraisers while on company time. The $52,000 that the Edwards campaign realized from the Arkansas fundraisers resulted in civil fines and penalties totaling $59,500 for all parties concerned.
It is all but certain that the Turner & Associates fiasco in Arkansas is typical of Edwards’ fundraising tactics inside plaintiffs’ law firms. And if the FEC can hire a sufficient number of lawyers to delve deeply into Edwards’ fundraising activities during the 2006-2008 campaign period, they are certain to reap a bonanza in fines and penalties.
In previous columns I’ve referred to Edwards as the “polecat” of Democratic presidential politics…the “skunk at the Sunday school picnic.” Knowing how he raises money to support his presidential ambitions, Edwards is one candidate who cannot be watched too closely. The 2008 campaign is under way and the polecat rides again.
|
