Tag: campaign contributions
Indicted Rep. Fortenberry Claims He ‘Forgot’ Illegal Campaign Contributions

Indicted Rep. Fortenberry Claims He ‘Forgot’ Illegal Campaign Contributions

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) was indicted in October on three felony charges relating to illegal campaign contributions and lying to federal investigators. As he faced charges, Fortenberry denied ever knowing the contributions were illegal, despite records indicating he did receive a warning about them. His lawyers reportedly are now claiming the 60-year-old incumbent simply couldn't remember what had happened in 2018 — as he runs for reelection on a platform of "personal responsibility."

The Omaha World-Herald reported on Friday that attorneys defending the nine-term representative are seeking to call a memory expert to suggest that Fortenberry is at an age where his memory might be failing and that he simply could not recall the events of 2018 when interviewed by federal prosecutors the following year.

They argued that Fortenberry was forced to answer “confusing and repetitive questions" and said at the time that he "did not have a clear recollection of the events." The attorneys said their expert witness would testify that "memory fidelity and accuracy tend to decline" as people age and that absent such testimony, jurors might assume "Fortenberry must have lied to the government."

According to the Department of Justice, in 2016 a foreign national illegally arranged for $30,000 of his own money to be donated to Fortenberry's reelection campaign through conduits at a fundraising event.

Two years later, the indictment alleges, Fortenberry was told by the event co-host that the donations were probably illegal — but did not amend his campaign finance filings and "knowingly and willfully falsified, concealed, and covered up by trick, scheme, and device material facts" about the donations.

In 2019, he repeatedly told federal investigators that he had never been informed that the donations were improper.

A spokesperson did not immediately respond to an inquiry for this story, but Fortenberry has previously denied all wrongdoing.

Shortly after the indictment, Fortenberry began raising funds for his legal defense by falsely claiming the crimes he was accused of were "fake" and that he was only being prosecuted because of his political views.

"Politically motivated FBI agents can and do lie in order to manufacture fake crimes against patriots," wrote Fortenberry's wife Celeste in a solicitation email on his behalf. "I'm writing you today because this has become my family's story."

Though the federal investigation began in 2018 under Republican former President Donald Trump, Celeste Fortenberry claimed prosecutors were only after her spouse to "stop his work and flip his seat." Nebraska's First Congressional District is solidly red and votes more than 10 points more Republican than the nation as a whole, making it an unlikely focus of purported illegal interference.

It is a common legal tactic to claim that the defendant does not recall details or events. Indeed, Trump famously claimed dozens of times during special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation that he did not "remember" or "recall" what had happened. He also claimed lapses in memory 59 times during a 2015 deposition about his now-defunct Trump University.

Despite his alleged fallible memory and ongoing legal issues, Fortenberry announced in January that he would seek reelection in November.

In his kickoff video message, he bragged that "in spite of the difficulties of this year, we've been able to achieve some major accomplishments," including passage of a noncontroversial ALS therapy bill he co-sponsored with 330 colleagues.

Fortenberry's campaign site welcome page notes his belief that "Nebraska, with our unique cultural heritage of personal responsibility, hard work, and commitment to family and community, has much to give our country by way of example."

Reprinted with permission from American Independent

Mileage Representative Aaron Schock Billed For Personal SUV Adds To Legal Woes

Mileage Representative Aaron Schock Billed For Personal SUV Adds To Legal Woes

By Katherine Skiba, Angela Caputo, and Todd Lighty, Chicago Tribune (TNS)

CHICAGO — Representative Aaron Schock’s world travels have been well-chronicled by him on Instagram, and to his dismay, more recently by news reporters.

There are photos of Schock dancing the tango with a long-legged woman in Buenos Aires, parasailing in the Andes and surfing the waves off Hawaii.

But what is less known about Schock, and less publicly chronicled, is the number of miles supposedly racked up in the mundane task of driving his Chevrolet Tahoe, much of it presumably around his central Illinois district.

An analysis of government documents and Schock campaign finance records shows that from January first, 2010, through June 30, 2014, Schock was reimbursed by taxpayers and his political funds roughly $90,000 for putting about 171,000 miles on his personal vehicle.

The news outlet Politico first reported on Schock’s mileage peculiarities. It found that when Schock sold his Tahoe in July 2014, it actually had a total of about 81,000 miles on it, far less than the miles for which Schock was reimbursed. Illinois secretary of state records show that the Tahoe was the only vehicle registered to Schock at the time.

His driving habits, global travels, and business dealings have now drawn the attention of the Justice Department. Prosecutors are moving to subpoena potential witnesses as an FBI investigation gets underway in Springfield and Washington, according to sources.

Schock, 33, once a rising star seen as a fresh face for the Republican Party, abruptly announced last week he was resigning from Congress effective March 31.

A spokesman said Schock has “reimbursed all the monies received for official mileage since his election to Congress.” Schock earlier repaid $40,000 for controversial redecorating work he had done on his Capitol Hill office. He admitted no wrongdoing in his resignation statement, saying only that the constant questions were a “great distraction.” Schock was in his fourth term in the House.

Those who follow such matters told the Chicago Tribune that one of the biggest problems Schock faces is explaining to federal authorities why there is a discrepancy in the miles driven and miles paid.

Erroneous billing for mileage is easily proved, hard to refute, and a wrong that a jury can easily understand, said Paul Rothstein, a Georgetown University law professor who specializes in public corruption cases.

“There aren’t a lot of legal or factual ambiguities about it,” Rothstein said. “It’s not susceptible to saying it was an unintentional, accidental mistake.”

Charles Tiefer, former acting general counsel for the U.S. House, praised Schock for repaying the money. “It’s not an admission of guilt, but it shows a desire to obey the law as much as you can,” Tiefer said. “Always a good idea.”

Over the years, automobiles and mileage reimbursement have been ripe for abuse by lawmakers, in part, because the records are seldom scrutinized.

The late Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a Democratic power broker from Chicago, was indicted in 1994 for multiple crimes, some based on personal use of autos paid for by taxpayers and by his campaign. Rostenkowski ultimately pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud for misuse of public funds to buy gifts and to pay employees who did little or no official work.

The Federal Election Commission in 2008 found that Representative Gregory Meeks (D-NY), improperly used $9,812 in campaign funds for vehicle lease payments and repairs that were personal expenses.

Meeks admitted violating federal elections laws, paid a $63,000 penalty and refunded to his campaign committee money used for personal expenses, which also included $6,230 for a personal trainer.
___
Dr. Richard Schock told the Tribune on Thursday that the news media have been “like cockroaches” and have unfairly attacked his son, whom he called brilliant, conservative, and moral.

Asked about the apparent overcharging for mileage, Dr. Schock replied, “I have no idea what that’s about. I didn’t keep the books. He’ll have to explain that to whoever he has to explain it to.”

According to House rules, representatives who use a privately owned vehicle for “official and representational business” can be reimbursed for transportation costs. They are reimbursed on a rate-per-mile basis. During the time Aaron Schock owned the Tahoe the maximum rates ranged from 50 to 56.5 cents per mile.

Schock was first elected to Congress in 2008 to represent the Peoria and Springfield areas. The following year, in November 2009, he bought a black 2010 Chevrolet Tahoe from Green Chevrolet in Peoria, according to Illinois secretary of state records.

The vehicle apparently served him well.

On July 19, 2014, Schock was back at Green Chevrolet. He got a new 2015 Tahoe, black, just like the old one, which he traded in. In what experts called an uncommon move, his campaign paid for the vehicle, according to records. Records show Schock’s campaign paid $74,000 for the SUV.

Federal and state law require the owner report the mileage when transferring ownership. Failing to disclose the true mileage can result in fines or criminal charges. Schock’s 2010 Tahoe, according to records, had 81,860 miles on it.

A week later, Schock’s father bought the used Tahoe from the dealership. Dr. Schock said he paid “28,000 something” for it.

Dr. Schock said he did not buy the used Tahoe directly from his son because he was unaware his son was getting rid of it. Dr. Schock said that when his son picked him up for church, that’s when he learned that his son bought a new car.

Why didn’t the congressman keep the old Tahoe? “He said it had too many miles on it,” Dr. Schock recalled.

The owner of the car dealership, Jeff Green, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Green has contributed to Schock’s political campaigns, giving him more than $12,000 since 2008. Green’s name recently surfaced in news accounts about him flying the congressman around on his private plane. In addition, associates of both men said, Green often flew the congressman around Illinois in a helicopter that Green owns.

Schock also bought property from Green that was financed under terms that have raised questions.

Local tax and county land records obtained by the Peoria Journal Star and reviewed by The Associated Press show that a company managed by Schock paid $300,000 last May to buy a commercial property owned by Green, who retained a larger parcel next door. The lawmaker then signed a mortgage application with a local Peoria bank for twice the sale price.

A spokesman for Schock declined to comment about the 2014 land deal.

Questions about how Schock paid for his jet-setting lifestyle have swirled around him for years.

Under federal election laws, expenditures are legal as long as they are used for a political or campaign purpose. The FEC is charged with examining campaign finance reports to determine if the expenses are allowed but has been criticized for lax oversight and has not audited a campaign committee since 2012. However, a complaint can trigger an audit.

However, a complaint can trigger an audit.

The FEC has confirmed it is reviewing a new complaint filed against Schock by the liberal-leaning watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The group in 2012 complained about Schock spending $1,136 at a luxury hotel in Greece. Schock paid his campaign back, acknowledging that the hotel bill was not a campaign expense.

The Tribune in 2013 reported that Schock was one of the Illinois delegation’s heaviest spenders on meals and travel. His campaign spent more than $2,600 on cuff links, paid $390 to a seaplane company based in the British Virgin Islands and spent more than $1,500 on concert tickets.

Despite questions raised about his spending, Schock’s penchant for travel did not taper off.

The Tribune recently found that from 2012 to 2014, campaign money spent for travel, including private planes, commercial airfare, stays at luxury hotels, and limousine service, nearly doubled.

All told, from 2008 through 2014, more than $500,000 was spent on travel for Schock and others, according to his publicly filed campaign financial reports. That does not include other travel expenses billed to his taxpayer-funded congressional account. Schock spent freely from both his congressional office budget and his campaign funds. His troubles appear to stem from both.

Nearly half of the money went toward hotel stays at places such as Miami’s high-end Fontainebleau resort and the Bohemian Club in Northern California, which Vanity Fair magazine described as an “ultra-exclusive” club for “America’s richest, most conservative men.”

Another $156,000 was spent on private airport access and chartered flights on top of $117,000 for commercial airfare.

Over the past two years, all of the travel charges were paid directly through the campaign accounts, rather than being reimbursed to Schock, and could have covered expenses for guests at fundraising events or other official business. When the Tribune earlier this month chronicled the adventures of the globe-trotting congressman, his aides declined to explain whether his trips — from the Greek Isles to the glaciers of Patagonia — were for business purposes or recreational.

Schock earned a reputation for being a gifted fundraiser and amassed a political fund that campaign finance experts say was unusual given that he was a shoo-in for re-election in a bedrock Republican district. He’s leaving office with more than three million in his campaign fund.

Under federal law, Schock cannot keep the money for himself. He may give it to the Republican Party, other candidates, and charities, or use it to pay legal bills that might arise from investigations into his spending practices. He also could let the money sit there in the event someday he returns to politics.

Most of Schock’s political donations were spent through his official Schock for Congress campaign fund. That fund, governed by stricter rules than his other political committees, would likely be “subject to more scrutiny” from investigators, said Brett Kappel, a Washington lawyer who specializes in campaign finance law.

Kappel also said having a car bought by the campaign can present another set of problems.

“If you have a campaign car and you’re using it for personal use, you have to keep a log and reimburse the campaign,” Kappel said.

Records show that as of the end of 2014, Schock had not made any direct payments to any of his funds for personal use of the 2015 Tahoe.

Kappel said the ironclad rule is “a congressman can’t take campaign funds and convert them to personal use.

“For people who get caught up in these drip, drip, drip scandals, it’s not a comfortable place to be in,” he said. “There’s also the prospect of the other shoe — or more shoes dropping.”

Photo: Nancy Stone via Chicago Tribune/TNS

Lobbyists Work To Kill California Bill That Would Outlaw Flimsy Plastic Grocery Bags

Lobbyists Work To Kill California Bill That Would Outlaw Flimsy Plastic Grocery Bags

By Jessica Calefati, San Jose Mercury News

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Lobbyists have launched a frenzied eleventh-hour effort to kill a bill that would make California the first state to outlaw flimsy plastic grocery bags, delaying a key vote and setting up one of the fiercest legislative battles of the year.

Last week, the bill seemed in the bag after it cleared a tough committee vote. But in recent days, industry lobbyists who have squashed more than a dozen other proposed bag bans over the last few years have renewed their effort by targeting moderate Democrats.

“We’re going to do everything in our power to educate legislators on the facts,” said Mark Daniels, a senior vice president at Hilex Poly, an East Coast company that is the largest producer of single-use plastic grocery bags in North America.

Opponents led by the company have spent more than half a million dollars in lobbying fees and campaign donations, painting the proposal as a job killer.

But environmentalists are also expressing confidence as they dig in for an epic battle similar to their ultimately successful fight to pass California’s “bottle bill” in the 1980s. The stakes are even higher this year because the clout of environmental groups is on the line after a series of embarrassing legislative defeats last year.

Supporters say a statewide bag ban is needed to wipe out a particularly noxious form of litter that kills marine life in the Pacific Ocean and costs Californians $25 million a year to collect and bury.

“Single-use plastic bags blow out of garbage trucks and landfills all the time. They become litter even after they’ve been properly disposed of,” said Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste, which championed the beverage container deposit law three decades ago.

The latest lobbying push helped stall an Assembly floor vote on the bill that had been scheduled for Wednesday. Three of the Assembly members being courted by the industry to vote no on the bill — Democrats Henry Perea, Susan Talamantes Eggman, and Adam Gray — received campaign contributions from Hilex Poly in 2013.

None returned phone calls on Wednesday.

If Senate Bill 270 clears the Assembly, the state Senate must also pass the measure before Aug. 31, the end of the legislative session.

Hilex Poly is headquartered in Hartsville, S.C., and none of its 24 factories is located in the Golden State. But, Daniels said, a significant amount of the company’s plastic grocery bags are sold in California.

The company is also a founding member of the American Progressive Bag Alliance, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., that has been running television and radio advertisements against the proposed legislation since April, when the bill was first heard by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

According to reports filed with the Secretary of State’s Office, the alliance has spent roughly $440,000 on lobbyists to kill plastic bag bans proposed in Sacramento this year and last year by Democratic state Sen. Alex Padilla, whom the alliance has personally attacked in its ads.

In January, Padilla announced a breakthrough compromise with some of the legislation’s other opponents. He agreed to make $2 million from the state’s bottle-and-can recycling fund available to California businesses that want to retool their operations and instead manufacture reusable plastic bags that meet the bill’s rigorous standards. That was enough to persuade one major Southern California plastic bag manufacturer to change its mind about the legislation, which is co-sponsored by Democratic state Sens. Kevin de Leon and Ricardo Lara.

In the months before and after Hilex Poly successfully stopped lawmakers’ attempt last year to impose a statewide bag ban, the company made almost $30,000 in campaign contributions to many of the state senators who voted against the bill.

The company’s largest political contribution last year went to Democratic state Sen. Leland Yee, who was indicted this year on corruption and racketeering charges. His campaign for secretary of state received a check from Hilex Poly for $6,800 three months after Yee cast a vote against last year’s bag ban proposal.

Two weeks ago, Hilex Poly added another weapon to its arsenal. The plastic bag manufacturer hired Strategic Solutions Advisors, a firm founded by Frank Molina, who served as a senior adviser to Assembly and Senate leaders before becoming a lobbyist.

If passed and signed into law, the proposal would ban grocery stores and pharmacies from offering customers single-use plastic bags beginning July 1, 2015. And a year later, the rule would apply to convenience stores and liquor stores, too. It would impose a minimum 10-cent fee on any paper or reusable plastic bags sold to customers who forgot to bring their own bags when they shop and sets strict standards for what types of bags count as reusable.

AFP Photo/Frederic J. Brown

Interested in U.S. politics? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Cuomo Has Raised Millions Through Loophole He Pledged To Close

Cuomo Has Raised Millions Through Loophole He Pledged To Close

by Theodoric Meyer,ProPublica.

When he ran for office four years ago, New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo pledged to close a loophole in the state’s campaign finance regulations allowing corporations and individuals to pour unlimited amounts of money into politics.

Instead, he’s become the loophole’s biggest beneficiary.

New York State forbids corporations from giving more than $5,000 a year to candidates and political committees. But limited liability companies — businesses that share attributes of corporations and partnerships — are allowed to give up to $60,800 to a statewide candidate per election cycle and up to $150,000 a year to candidates and committees overall. What’s more, corporations and individuals can set up an unlimited number of LLCs through which to donate, making the caps effectively meaningless.

Cuomo took contributions from LLCs while running for governor in 2010, but said at the time that he was only accepting them so that he could get elected and change the law. He has twice proposed legislation that would eliminate the LLC exception, most recently in his budget proposal in January, but it hasn’t been enacted. He told reporters Wednesday that there was little chance any campaign finance reforms would pass before the legislative session ends next week.

Cuomo has accepted more than $6.2 million from LLCs in the three and a half years since he took office, according to a ProPublica analysis of state campaign finance filings. That’s more than double the amount his two predecessors, Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson, took in during their combined four years in office. The contributions make up a sizeable chunk of the $33 million Cuomo has reported raising for his re-election campaign. (The data reflects contributions reported through mid-January, when candidates last filed disclosure reports.)

In a statement, Cuomo spokesman Matthew Wing offered this to explain the apparent contradiction: “The Cuomo campaign is following existing campaign finance laws, while the governor is leading the charge to reform them, including closing the loophole for LLCs.”

That’s of little consolation to campaign finance watchdogs concerned that those who have — or are seeking to have — business with New York are continuing to use this wrinkle in the state’s contribution rules to exert their influence. Much of the money coming to Cuomo through LLCs appears to be from real estate developers, with cable companies and liquor distributors among those also providing healthy cash infusions.

“This is a gaping hole,” said Dick Dadey, the executive director of Citizens Union, a New York good-government group. Getting rid of it is “an easy fix that would turn the spigot down a bit of the flow of money from big contributors.”

It’s not always immediately apparent who controls the LLCs making the contributions. Some, like Time Warner NY Cable LLC, have familiar names. But many LLCs don’t give much of a clue as to who’s behind the money. Some controlled by real estate interests are named for streets or addresses — Arwin 88th Street LLC or 134 W 58 LLC — that require some digging to connect the dots.

Cuomo has also taken far more from LLCs since his election than any other New York State politician or committee. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has accepted about $1 million from LLCs since 2011, according to ProPublica’s analysis. The Senate Republican Campaign Committee has received about $851,000, while the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee has totaled about $172,000.

New York’s rules for political giving by LLCs are among the loosest in the nation.

Federal regulations generally bar LLCs, along with corporations and unions, from giving directly to federal candidates. The rules vary at the state level — at least six states allow unlimited contributions from all types of donors, while others ban donations from corporations and other businesses entirely. But few states have carved out exceptions for LLCs as generous as New York’s.

Maryland and the District of Columbia passed legislation to close their versions of the LLC loophole last year.

Cuomo has repeatedly called for tightening New York’s campaign finance limits since his election. After lawmakers failed to pass the ethics reforms he proposed last year — including closing the LLC loophole — Cuomo formed a Moreland Commission to investigate corruption and recommend new campaign finance laws.

The commission’s preliminary report, released in December, illustrated how companies use LLCs to avoid contribution limits. A “representative string of emails” subpoenaed by investigators included “a lively discussion among members of an organization about which of the organization’s LLCs should be used to make a round of outsized contributions, based upon which ones had already given outsized contributions in the past,” the report said. The commission recommended closing the loophole, among other reforms.

Instead, the loophole survived when Cuomo announced in March that he was shutting down the Moreland Commission. Lawmakers had agreed to adopt new bribery and anti-corruption measures, he said, so there was no longer a need for it.

But that halted the panel’s investigation into potential campaign finance abuses by LLCs.

“The commission was not given the time to accomplish what it was charged with doing,” said Richard Briffault, a Columbia Law School professor who served on the commission. “None of the investigations had time to be completed.”

Of the LLCs giving to Cuomo, the most generous are controlled by Glenwood Management, a real estate development company headquartered on Long Island. Headed by Leonard Litwin, a reclusive 99-year-old magnate, Glenwood has given $800,000 to Cuomo since he took office using 19 separate LLCs. Glenwood’s LLCs have also given millions of dollars to other New York candidates and committees, both Democratic and Republican.

Another real estate developer, the Extell Development Co., has also given extensively to Cuomo through LLCs, including two donations last year that were flagged by the Moreland Commission.

Two LLCs affiliated with Extell gave the governor a total of $100,000 on Jan. 28, 2013 — two days before Cuomo signed legislation that granted a tax break to Extell’s One57 skyscraper in Manhattan, as well as properties owned by four other developers. Two other LLCs with ties to Extell gave Cuomo another $100,000 six months later. (The contributions were first reported last year by The Daily News.)

“While we do not comment on any specific campaign contributions, we categorically deny any quid pro quo between contributions and legislation,” Anna LaPorte, a spokeswoman for Extell, said in a statement to ProPublica. “Any suggestion to the contrary is an attempt to inhibit our constitutional right to have our voice heard on public policy issues.”

There is no evidence that Cuomo played any role in inserting the tax breaks. Without naming Extell or Cuomo, however, the Moreland Commission called out the developers’ donations, saying they created “the appearance of a relationship between large donations and legislation that specifically benefits large donors.”

“Our investigation continues and we draw no premature conclusions” about whether the tax breaks were improper, the commission wrote in its December report, “but it is clear that the combination of very large campaign contributions and very narrowly targeted benefits to those same donors creates an appearance of impropriety that undermines public trust in our elected representatives.”

Real estate interests may take advantage of the LLC loophole partly because of the way their businesses are structured. Developers typically keep each of their properties in a separate LLC to limit their legal liability, giving them plenty of LLCs with which to write checks to politicians.

“There is a lot of business they have before Albany,” said Bill Mahoney, the research coordinator for the New York Public Interest Research Group, “and this is one way for them to buy more access than other folks.”

Indeed, other businesses with huge stakes in New York have used LLCs to write outsized checks to Cuomo.

Since the governor took office, Time Warner Cable has contributed more than $60,000 to him through its LLC; LLCs affiliated with Cablevision have given $110,000. Two liquor distributors, Empire Merchants LLC and Empire Merchants North LLC, have given over $120,000. And two LLCs affiliated with the Ultimate Fighting Championship have contributed $115,000 to Cuomo, plus tens of thousands of dollars more to state legislators and political committees.

Cuomo has not proposed any legislation to legalize professional mixed martial arts events in New York, the only state that bans them. But almost a year after he received a $50,000 check from one of the LLCs, Cuomo seemed to come out in favor of overturning the ban.

“I think we need economic activity, especially in upstate New York,” he said in a radio interview in 2013. “I think this is a major endeavor that is televised, that is happening all over the country at this point. You’re not going to stop it from happening. And I’m interested in the potential economic potential for the state.”

Wing, the Cuomo spokesman, said there was no connection between the governor’s comments and the contributions.

Photo: Pat Arnow via Flickr