Let's Play "Mock the Republicans"

The Republic's Amanda Crawford is positively giddy. 

It seems that Republican Party Political Director Brett Mecum was listing the recent political witch hunts against Republicans and mistakingly said that Sen. Pamela Gorman had been targeted by Attorney General Terry Goddard.

Crawford uses her position at the Republic as a platform to mock Mecum for his error.  Rather than concede that Mecum is addressing a real issue, Crawford feigns shock that Goddard might have investigated Gorman. 

It's understandable that Mecum could have been confused, after all, Goddard has recently humiliated himself and cheapened his office with eight high-profile investigations of Republicans.  Here's how the Tribune's Mark Flatten covered the story. 

In the last four years, Goddard and his prosecutors have filed charges against eight elected officeholders.

But in the cases that have played out in court, the assertions that corrupt politicians were cashing in on their offices have largely evaporated, replaced in many instances by charges involving paperwork or budgetary authority. The convictions that still stand have come through plea agreements to low-level felonies or misdemeanors, with requirements that the elected official resign.

Now Goddard’s critics, especially the politicians he has prosecuted, are accusing him of misusing his office to fuel his own political ambitions.

The Tribune Editorial Board pointed out that Goddard is in danger making a fool of himself.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard risks turning into a 21st century Barney Fife if he continues to pursue costly, time-intensive conflict-of-interest cases against elected officials which end with either small-change plea deals or larger charges being thrown out in court.

So Mecum has a point about Goddard and rather than addressing that point, Crawford simply mocks him.   

But what about Gorman...has she been the target of a high profile witch hunt that involved Goddard?  Well, actually yes she has.  But Goddard's involvement was peripheral.  It was the Clean Elections Commission that selectively targeted Gorman.

It started in the fall of 2004, when Gorman's primary election opponent raised two allegations.  The first allegation was that Gorman's brochures were "too nice," so they "must have cost" more than she said they cost.  How's that for a solid allegation?  It's from her opponent and he offers no evidence. 

The second allegation is even more spurious.  Gorman wrote--and properly disclosed--checks to her political consultant.  The complaint argued that the consultant obviously spent money on labor, office expenses postage etc.  The complaint alleged that Gorman should have broken the expenses to their final components.

Here was the response from Clean Elections.

CLEAN ELECTIONS HIRES INVESTIGATOR

An independent investigator for the agency that oversees Arizona's publicly funded elections system believes three freshman Republican lawmakers have violated campaign finance laws.

The commission will decide in a special meeting on Thursday whether or not to look further into the campaigns of Sen. Ron Gould of Lake Havasu and Reps. Pamela Gorman of Anthem and Rick Murphy of Glendale. Investigator Gene Lemmon, who was hired by the Clean Elections Commission last week, said he believes the panel should move forward with an audit and investigation.

* The candidates didn't provide enough detail on how much they spent for mailers, phone calls and other campaign expenditures. Their finance reports mainly showed payments to their consultants, and not how much the consultants then paid to individual vendors for the work.

* In the Gorman case, her campaign produced and mailed out thousands of high-quality, glossy mail pieces that, her opponent alleged, must have cost more than her Clean Elections spending limits allowed.

PANEL TO AUDIT CAMPAIGNS OF 3 -
GOP LEGISLATORS FOCUS OF INQUIRY

The agency that oversees Arizona's system of publicly funded elections launched formal investigations Thursday into the campaigns of three freshman Republican lawmakers for reputed spending violations.
The Citizens Clean Elections Commission accepted the preliminary findings of its independent investigator, released earlier this week, and voted to fully audit the campaigns of Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu, and Reps. Pamela Gorman, R-Anthem, and Rick Murphy, R-Glendale.

Investigator Gene Lemon believes Gould, Gorman and Murphy didn't provide enough detail on how much they spent for mailers, phone calls and other campaign expenditures. 

And he alleged that Gorman's campaign may have gotten outside financial help because it produced more high-quality mail pieces than she seemingly could have afforded with her budget.

Notice how that last allegation is phrased?  "seemingly could have."  That's right, they dragged Gorman in because her mail pieces were nicer than she "seemingly could have afforded."

But then there's a twist in the investigation.  Remember the other charge involving lack of detail?  It turns out that nearly every candidate simply writes a check to his consultant.  None of them ask the consultant to break out the detailed expenditures.

So one of Gorman's constituents filed a complaint against Napolitano and Goddard and alleged the same offense for which Gorman was being investigated. 

CAMPAIGN COMPLAINT TARGETS TOP OFFICIALS

Fed up with what he views as selective investigations of conservative Republicans, an Anthem man launched Clean Elections complaints against Gov. Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Terry Goddard on Friday for alleged campaign-finance violations during their 2002 runs for office.

Napolitano campaign attorney Scott Bales said the campaign followed the rules as it understood them, and that the commission found no fault with its spending at the time despite some outside complaints.

"I haven't been involved at all with what's going on with the Republican legislators," Bales said. "I know (Meyers) is complaining that the commission is being stricter with these people, and I don't know if that's true or not. But I know we acted consistently with what we understood in 2002 was required.

"If they are now saying that a contractor can't subcontract without those subcontractors being disclosed, that's not something they were saying in 2002," he said.

So Napolitano and Goddard--together with nearly every other candidate--followed the same procedure for which Gorman is being investigated.

The situation became untenable for the Clean Elections Commission.  They declined to investigate Napolitano and Goddard and droped the investigation of Gorman.

Another freshman lawmaker, who was caught up in the same series of probes involving five socially conservative lawmakers and a pair of campaign consultants, was cleared of any wrongdoing by Lemon this week. Rep. Pamela Gorman, R-Anthem, was grateful for Lemon's findings but was annoyed it took months to finish her investigation.

Gorman's opponent had accused her of getting outside financial help because her campaign seemingly produced more high-quality mail pieces than it could afford. Lemon reviewed her receipts and found no wrongdoing.

It turns out that Gorman could prove that she didn't overspend on the brochures and that her reporting was consistent with other candidates.

Notice who was targeted?  Five socially Conservative Republicans.  There are 90 legislators not to mention the statewide elected officials, most of them use this type of accounting and the investigation didn't end until Napolitano and Goddard were dragged in. 

So Republican Political Director Brett Mecum was right that Goddard been selectively prosecuting Republicans.  And he was right that Gorman was the victim of selective prosecution in a case that involved Goddard.  But he was wrong on one point.  Gorman wasn't one of Goddard's victims, she was targeted by a different state agency. 

Rather than mock him, perhaps Amanda Crawford should have conceded that he might actually have a point. 

Not that she's biased or anything. 

Comments

[SonoranSam]

It's my theory that Mecum had a "washout" moment when he felt the glare of the bright lights, and mentioned Pamela Gorman when he meant to say Trish Groe.

Anyone who's been on the other end of the TV tube can relate.

Amanda seized on it because she gets a lot of pressure to come up with blog posts. Gotta feed the hungry beast.

Greg has been equally petty in some of his postings when it served his purpose to mock a D.

No big deal. Probably wasn't worth the electrons Amanda rearranged. It was even less valuable for Greg to go on a "they're out-to-get-us-again" diatribe.

But we've all gotta come up with stuff to feed the monster, I guess, so what the heck....

[Nick S]

Is this where we say its only illegal if a Republican does it?

Its not like Gorman had a fugitive funnel $850,000 in illegal contributions to her. Not that the press is concerned about something like that.

[George]

So what is Clean Elections doing with the complaints about Napolitano and Goddard? Are they under investigation?

[Randy]

George -- "Clean" Elections dismissed the complaint against Napolitano and Goddard. They're Democrats.

Could Goddard be brought up on ethical charges for using his position for partisan purposes?

Would the press ignore this story if Goddard were a Republican going after Democrats?

From Goddard to the county DA's in the Duke Lacrosse case and the Tom DeLay issue, there are too many instances of Democrats using their offices for partisan advantage. Our democracy depends in large part on the fair application of the law.

Lets hope the media can see the bigger picture one day. And hope that Republicans don't start acting like Democrats.

[Timothy]

No one should use a public office for partisan advantage. Nor should anyone use it for partisan disadvantage. So I want all those Democrats elected to Congress during Bush's term to step down.

[Modano]

Amanda Crawford concede something? Are you kidding? Amanda searches far and wide for sources and quotes that only support her personal viewpoint – discarding the rest as “biased” ironically. I wrote her and Benson off as predictable and insignificant long ago.

[George Hunt's Ghost]

Greg

If your party spokesperson accidentally named you as the current or previous target of a criminal investigation, you'd be pretty upset, I dare say.

It was an absolutely unpardonable mistake, and if I were Senator Gorman, I'd be calling for his head.

This wasn't Mr. Mecum confusing an ancient clean elections witch hunt with an investigation by Goddard; at the time, my understanding is that he was in New York State, doing for their Republican Party what he is now during for ours.

[Mark]

George - read the article:

"When we did get Mecum on the phone, he said he had prepared his talking points late the night before the show taped and the investigation into Sen. Gorman had just come to his attention.

So... what investigation?

Mecum said he'd check his notes and get back to us."

What investigation could it be? Hmmmmmm, I wonder....? Could it have been the clean election investigation?

Don't ask Amanda Crawford because she only remembers successful witch hunts.

[Guy Guufé]

Man if you consider that mocking you've got some thin skin. I read it as correcting an error by Mecum. Crawford may not be the best reporter at the Rep, but if you're going to be critical, the least you could do is be right.

Avoir,
Guy

[Steve Rogers]

Mecum is an embarrassment to the GOP. Given his cliched language, lack of grammatical skills and tendency to be flat-out wrong, it's little wonder they moved him away from dealing with the press. He was clearly out of his league.

As far as Randy's concern about Republicans not acting like Democrats when it comes to half-assed, politically motivated investigations: Perhaps Randy should pay attention to what Sheriff Joe and County Attorney Thomas are up to.

[Ann]

The question is how a person hired to be the communications director, then moved to political director, but who is no longer speaking to the press, is allowed to be the face and voice of the party on a taped TV news show? Did the AZGOP need a political director? Was everyone else busy on the day of taping?

Overall, the multitude of sins in this twisted tale cover everything from basic inept management to calculated covert crimes with a whole lot of political expediency thrown in.

[Timothy]

Did Mecum just accidently leak the fact that a grand jury is investigating Gorman? Break out the pink underwear!

And can someone please tell me why Arpaio going up against the New Times is political, and not just personal? He certainly has nothing to gain "politically."

[Steve Rogers]

When you use the power of your office to silence, intimidate or discredit your critics, it's a misuse of political power.

[A Republican who hopes Goddards runs for Governor - EASY WIN BABY!]

Actually, as the lawyers for Clean Elections, the AG's office would have been involved in the investigation of Gorman. And it was politically motivated. And it did fail to turn up even the slightest shred of anything. So it was very much in keeping with all of the investigations Mecum mentioned. Frankly, Gorman should wear it as a badge of honor rather than pretend it never happened.

[Aaron]

Listen, this goes back to what I have said all along. Let's get some opinions on itemization and what the proper use of signs from previous election cycles should be and how to properly report their in kind value and let's be done with it. I am tired of the witchhunts on both sides of the aisle. I think consultants should itemize their expenditures but I don't want any examples made out of former candidates unless they do something really egregious.

[Joe Baby]

If only the fourth estate were as tough on itself (and each other).

[Travis]

The publicly funded election scheme politically named, "Clean Elections" cannot be fixed. It was bought and paid for by Jim Petersen and is for the expressed use of the Democrats to gain power. It works in tandem with the liberal newspapers. The key component, along with the vague and easily misused regulations, is the use of large damning headlines.

It is very easy to make a public accusation during an election cycle and initiate an "investigation" and gin up headlines about "corruption", "misuse of funds" and and "illegalities". By the time the investigation is over and the allegations are dismissed, the election is over and the damage is done.

The reason the Dems have been successful at this and the Republicans have not is that one needs the headlines to incur the most damage. Without the headlines, no one would know about the allegations. When a Democrat is accussed, there is the distinct sound of crickets. If the accusations are against a Republican, the cymbols crash and bells ring in the public square and do not cease until the election is over.

Greg, if you want a further story, you might want to look at who is promoting "Clean Elections". Ask the question "Who is traveling all over the United States promoting 'Clean Elections' and who is paying for the trips?" Other interesting questions are: "What is the PR budget for 'Clean Elections', who gets paid and what percentage of the money goes toward advertising the scheme as opposed to 'public education' and how much does the whole thing actually cost?"