... and an Arizona CRI update.

Three must reads from our sister-site, OutsideLansing.com, all dealing with campaign finance research we've done, and on statewide stories. 

First, a story of shady self-dealing from the newest, revived pro-stem cell ballot committee. $10K goes into the pocket of the same non-profit executive director, while $7500 goes to the non-profit.  $2500 was spent on the aborted 2004 ballot operations, out of $20,000 raised.  Not a good deal for donors.

Second, the analysis of a new Jon Stryker Michigan PAC, Communities Voting Together, and some odd accounting.

Third, the campaign finance complaint this author filed today against the Stryker committee.

And here's some interesting updates on other issues.

Same old tactics in Arizona against the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (AzCRI). For example, its "divisive" (all political questions are) and programs for women's violence might be stopped (not so at all since its "public education, contracting, and employment" only, and educational programs against violence should be broad-based anyway, and physical protection programs even without the categorical protection would be protected under the "bona fide" sex-based differences clause):

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said she feared the initiative would wipe out the Governor’s Commission to Prevent Violence Against Women and the Women in Applied Science and Education program at Arizona State University aimed at helping women in the College of Education.

But Max McPhail, director of the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, said the University of Michigan still has programs aimed largely at helping women in science and engineering despite voter approval last year of a ban on discrimination in education “But they don’t discriminate against men,’’ McPhail said. “So if men want to come to the program, they’re allowed.’’

McPhail's response is correct, and he probably also hit the violence argument hard too but it didn't get put in the paper. There are just too many of these bogus arguments out there.

Bill Nowling at Lunchbucket Conservative has been pointing out the ties between Norman Hsu and Michigan's Democratic leaders Debbie Stabenow and Jennifer Granholm.

Democrats have taken a liking to continually beating on the Jack Abramoff scandal that is now a year in the past to point to Republican corruption. But here we have it in spades on the other side, straight from a Ponzi-scheme artist, Norman Hsu. First, Hsu is a bad guy, as the New York Times points out:

According to court records from the case, Mr. Hsu ran a Ponzi scheme that took in cash from dozens of investors and returned profits to some of them before shutting down with more than $1 million missing.

Now Hsu is accused of a political-Ponzi whereby he would act as conduit to evade campaign finance limits.

With RightMichigan also noting the additional money going to Michigan Committees. Stabenow has returned $4200 of the donations to a charity, but apparently hasn't donated remaining $27,000. The Michigan Democratic State Committee apparently accepted $35,000, and Granholm's gubernatorial committee over $13,000.

Obviously, candidates receiving such money aren't necessarily aware of crimes before they become known (bad that our system is such, but reality). But it would be hypocritical to continue railing on 10th degree of separation links to Jack Abramoff, as well.

And its also time to give it all back, ladies, and Mark Brewer.

Most of my Michigan readers are probably aware of former Michigan Lottery Commissioner and Granholm-Appointee Gary Peters and his recent declaration of candidacy to run for 9th District Congressional seat held by Joe Knollenberg. As a matter of full disclosure, I have in the past worked for Marty Knollenberg - Joe's son - but have no current financial relationship with the family. Naturally, as a result of that relationship, I follow the race with a keener interest than ordinary.

An interesting early twist to this race is that Peters initially appeared to do the right thing in the spring when he left his government post in preparation for running for office. But then, almost immediately thereafter, talks of Central Michigan University hiring Peters for a part-time endowed "Griffin Chair", which is an honorary appointment of considerable tradition at CMU, at about $60,000 a year for teaching one class and maintaining a short set of office hours. It's maybe quarter-time work. Peters accepted that position, and as I believe it will become clear over time, he knew he'd be running for US Congress while doing it. So the "right thing" - resigning from a government post to run full-time - became more of the wrong thing for Gary Peters, who actually gets a cush quarter-time appointment to pay his bills while he is still able to devote full-time to his campaign. It's actually a better gig for him than Lottery Commissioner because he'd have had to actually work full-time, and its all on the taxpayer dime. You may agree with Mr. Peters politically, but this whole CMU angle looks trickery and raises taxpayer-funded lobbying/campaigning issues.

Yesterday, I sent this letter to the President, Political Science Chair, and others:

Dear President Rao, Mr. Ringquist, and others:

I write to express serious reserverations over the appointment of Mr. Gary Peters to the Griffin Endowed Chair. While the university has argued the chair is privately endowed, we all certainly know that such appointments are still made by the public body for the equal benefit of students. Once money is given to the university it becomes public money subject to the ethics laws and will of the people of the State. Indeed, the university, like every other university, has an obligation to the taxpayer to seek out private donors to reduce the taxpayer burden. Those donations don't give the university extra flexibility in violating the laws of the State or even stepping outside the bounds of wisdom and fiscal prudence. It is also certain that such money is "fungible," that is, regardless of the source, its existence frees up other money which is most certainly subject to ethical regulations and common-sense.

In this vein, I write to seek your explanation on the appointment of Gary Peters. It is unnecessary for you to reiterate his qualifications. The question is whether the university should knowingly hire someone that it knows will become engaged in a full-time partisan political campaign during the propose tenure of the position. This question has four aspects. First, hiring a person while they are engaged in the campaign constitutes a form of financial support to the candidate, freeing them from the need to engage in additional fundraising (Mr. Peters can legally pay himself a salary from his own campaign, but CMU has now freed him of a large chunk of that burden - indeed, a larger chunk of that burden than anyone would legally be allowed to donate to his opponent). Second, hiring such a person calls into question whether their full-time committment is to their campaign or to students. Third, hiring such a person in the Political Science department, where questions about the campaign are bound to come up, calls into question whether an unbiased presentation, even at the subconscious level, is possible. Fourth, there is a question of whether Mr. Peters was forthright with this department during the hiring process? Most observers believe that Peters made a decision to run shortly after or before leaving his role as Lottery Commissioner. Was the Committee that selected Mr. Peters aware that he was running when it made the decision to hire him?

While it may be the case that faculty members across the country run for elective office during their tenures, it is far more rare that people running for elective office are hired by public universities to teach political science while they are in the midst of seeking office. I think it is vital that the university clarify to the public what its understanding of the relationship was and Mr. Peter's intent was when it made the decision. My request for this clarification does not necessarily imply that anyone, including Mr. Peters, committed wrongdoing here. My request is so that the public be fully informed so that it may judge the situation for itself.

Truly,
Chetly Zarko

Today's traditional Monday morning flurry of Supreme Court rulings is as notable for what remains as what was decided. The race preference in K-12 student assignments cases in Seattle and Kentucky remain in the hopper. Either it's being saved intentionally by the Court as a its final showpiece release, or the delay indicates a less obvious ruling than believed.

In three other key cases though we learn something about the new Court makeup. By saying no to the First Amendment rights of a student off-school property in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, the 5-4 majority has reaffirmed a line of decisions dating to the 80s which give extreme (and in ZR's opinion perhaps too much) deference to the decisions of public school administrators. The decision affirms the expected conservative alignment on student speech, although the Court will find itself facing the issue of off-school property speech again as blogs and internet criticism further embed themselves in our culture. The Court also affirmed a faith-based initiative as not-violated of the religion establishment clause of the First Amendment, and it overturned a part of McCain-Feingold on late-election "issue ads," allowing them. The decision there however shows an element of moderation in the two new Justices, with Roberts and Alito joining in a separate opinion for the Court, concurring in result with Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy, who would have gone farther and completely overturned the 2003 permitting McCain-Feingold regulations generally. This interesting division both shows that the two new Justices aren't copies of Scalia and Thomas, aren't likely to overtly violate stare decisis, and that their position isn't as easily pigeonholed as many would believe. That will have implications for a lot of issues, including race preferences, although we could know any day exactly what many of those implications on that issue are.

The Lansing State Journal apparently is taking a world of criticism from State of Michigan employees for publishing a database of all 53,000 employees. The employees somehow feel their names should be excluded from the list and that the LSJ has violated their privacy. Here a media law student, Jane Briggs-Bunting, defends the LSJ, the LSJ defends itself, while here and here they are attacked and news story on the criticism, as they are in numerous letters to the editor.

This is just public employee whining, and while, in some cases these employees may be sincere in that they "feel hurt", LSJ has done nothing wrong. Part of democracy sometimes includes people, particularly government employees, accepting the consequences of their choices. Working for government is a choice, and the people are entitled to know who works for them, not just the job titles. Of course, one of the choices is whether to work for government. Many employees say they have "sacrificed" private sector opportunities to do so - perhaps they have, but if its too great a sacrifice then they should go into the private sector where 1) they have less legal right to complain about what their boss does 2) they might or might not make more money or benefits. While LSJ's subscriber base has a large number of government employees who live in Lansing, it is paramount that LSJ stand up for what is right despite the pressure it is facing. If it doesn't, it won't matter - someone else will publish it in their stead.

It has been said that there is no possible use to the public for the names us than "prurient" interest or to create dissent against government employee salaries and neighborhood jealously. So what? Even if the public is morbidly curious, or especially if it creates a concern about overpaid salaries, that is the public's choice and right. The public can decide for itself if the salaries are too high. For example, Zarko Research has been working on publishing a similar list for the 38,000 University of Michigan employees, with names. The top thousand employees salaries are simply offensive. Those officials should be exposed, with names, and how does one "draw the line" between which names should be disclosed and not disclosed, other than simply publishing them all. Sure, the janitors and teaching assistants are unpaid, but they themselves can use the collective and individual information for a strong public purpose - knowing whether they are paid according to relative worth and lobbying for fair pay (note, the public employees of the State also benefit in that way). Such information can be used to guarantee or prove racial or gender discrimination cases, another benefit to the individual employees. Finally, only with name linkages can a researcher or citizen cross-check campaign finance donations to the list and know how his government employees are lobbying his own government for whatever purposes. These linkages would allow one to find "out-of-place" patterns, such as patterns of low-paid employees making large donations to candidates (say a janitor donating the $3400 to the Governor).

Sure, individual government employees may not at first glance like their name and job title being published, but in the long-run its better for both the public and the individuals that we don't literally have a secret government. Who works for government and how much they make is among the most basic facts of government. If we can't know that, we might as well scrap FOIA and OMA and forget about democracy.

On the campaign finance trail, an interesting tidbit appears. One "Osric Wilson," an odd-enough name to generate google uniqueness, appears to have transferred his local Wayne County Political Action Committee (limiting him to Wayne candidates), called Committee for a Better Government (CBG) to a statewide level. The Secretary of State has yet to complete the paperwork, but the singular and only hit for "Osric Wilson" on google is a Michigan Family Independence Agency (FIA) fire-safety webpage listed him as one of the few City of Detroit approved fire inspectors. This would lead to an obvious question - does Mr. Wilson use his PAC to curry favor in the bidding and approval process with fire-inspection and other City of Detroit services? And why did he write the letter to the Wayne County Clerk on January 24, 2007 asking for immediate transferrance to a statewide PAC - is he expanding his business?

Also noteworthy - the League of Conversation Voters (LCV) has created a segregated fund here in Michigan as a PAC, and Dem Senator Dennis Olshove (Warren, Fraser, southern Macomb) has created a leadership fund.

It was formed today - we don't even know the names of the filers, but this committee is one to watch, especially if you're an Oakland County client.

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce formed a second committee, called dryly "Michigan Chamber of Commerce PAC II", but it is not a PAC, it's a ballot question committee. Most likely, this has something to do with term limits. And there's a new PAC called Progessive Choices, out of Evanston, Illinois (ooo, evil out-of-state money from the left!).

The linked PDF file is the Statement of Organization of the final known committee to pop-up on October 27, 2006 in opposition to Proposal 2.

You can probably guess the direction a group calling itself "Vote No on Prop. 2: Sponsored by Feminist Majority Foundation."

I could care less because they had a First Amendment right to throw their money down that pie-hole, but I note for all those astro-turf worrying liberals that despise even a drop of out-of-state money, that these guys and gals (or maybe just gals) hail from Beverly Hills, California.

It's only $4000, and a bit surprising that they actually filed, but its always worth noting and following the money.

At right, you'll see Google "AdSense" ads on this website. If you click here, you'll see the full-size jpg of one moment in time from this ad-sense portal. The return to this website is a very modest amount of money, but it offers ZR a mechanism to recover something for the time spent here. In the inset image here, I've taken a permanent "screenshot", since the real ads at right are on a random rotation. If you read the final paragraph, you have an opportunity here to make a statement.

To my shock, the fifth ad in the bar was a "Vote No on Prop 2" ad. I couldn't resist clicking it (I don't get paid for my own clicks as google monitors it through cookies). The link goes to "noonprop2.org" and then is immediately "redirected" to "civilrights.org", a known entity operating out of Washington D.C. doing alot of pro-preference internet publications, and operating some legal defense funds and other lobbying efforts. Regardless, the specific page you're sent to use the so-called "magic words" - "No on Proposal 2!" and "Defeat Proposal 2", so the page is expressed advocacy. This page very explicitly advocates a No vote, "No" and "Defeat" Proposal 2, also known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI). Since google ads cost money, one would expect to see them in campaign reports, and indeed, the website itself would be required to have a "paid for with regulated funds" disclaimer, with address and organization, on it. It doesn't. And while google ads are modest in expense, for the last week the group has been operating a phone bank from Washington D.C. into Michigan. That's serious money. Zarko Research is following the campaign finance angle of this issue, and will report back as devolpments occur. The group touts its own efforts, as well as links to and touts that of One United Michigan (OUM), so a bit more research is in order.

While google allows me to "block" any particular advertiser, I'm choosing to the leave the ad in place, and I strongly encourage my readers to click it to their heart's content. If it doesn't show up in the main page because it isn't a good keyword fit, you can click into the "last comments" page here, which seems to have a perfect keyword fit to make it active (that "last comment" page is a great shortcut, by the way, see who's responding on the site). First, since Google Advertising is often metered in measurable daily quanta, your clicking an ad is a zero sum game that would "use up" whatever their daily budget was (if they set one), so it could reduce the number of appearances of the ads elsewhere. Since the advertising is random, it may not always be in the active bar (you can reload your page), but MCRI supporters can know for that for every click they are transferring wealth from a No on Proposal 2 supporter to a Yes on Proposal 2 supporter (don't use an automated program to make the clicks, and be reasonable in clicking, and feel free to click other ads as well, even after this ad expires). Sorry about the shameless self-promotion here, but it has to be said, and costs you nothing.

Jon Stryker and family have invested $5.1 million into the new Coalition for Progress political action committee. Almost all of this money has been distributed in direct "independent expenditures" against a variety of Michigan Republican candidates. The amounts are amazing.

Let's begin first with where the money has been spent, since the view of where it has come from is pretty easy (99.9% from Stryker family sources, 0.01% from $10-100 donations that will eventually qualify the PAC for the minimum 50 donations to become an "independent" PAC capable of donating 10 times the individual limit (thereby allowing Stryker, in early 2007, to contribute 10 times more than most individuals, directly to campaigns).

More than $1.34 million either opposing Dick DeVos or supporting Jennifer Granholm in more than a dozen different media buys. Neither campaign has control over these independent expenditures.

Over a million in unaccounted (not listing who it supports or opposes) for media buys.

Hundreds of thousands to other states minimum wage or other progressive ballot question issues, and hundreds of thousands to national PACs.

At least (but maybe more)
$176,000 to oppose Republican State Senate candidate Laura Toy.
$65,000 to oppose Republican State House candidate David Law (here in Oakland County).
$120,000 to oppose Republican State Senate candidate John Pappageorge (here in Oakland County).
$143,000 to oppose Republican State Senate candidate Tom George.
$163,000 to oppose Republican State Senate Candidates Roger Kahn.
$29,000 to oppose David Palsrok in the Ludington-area 101st State House seat.
$14,000 to oppose David Farhat, Muskegon's 91st State House seat.
$22,000 to oppose Gerald Van Woerkom, seeking the Muskegon-area 34th State Senate seat.
...

And I stopped counting additional amounts less than $10,000 each, but there are a number of additions to each of the above below that.

In many of these race, Stryker's investment exceeds or is comparable to amount the candidate himself will spend on the race.

That's a veritable who's-who of the competitive races. It's not just that Stryker had it in for one or two politicians he didn't like, he has targeted the entire slate of important races.

Of course, given current regulations and the likelihood that the First Amendment would protect him anyway, there's nothing that could really be done to stop this, except to be aware of it and to work as hard as possible against it. I will write more about Stryker's background as time progresses.

The Michigan Daily has this interesting analysis of the anti-Michigan Civil Rights Initiative fundraising effort, pointing to the lopsided-ness of donations to One United Michigan (OUM) over MCRI.

According to the Daily, a large number of University employees gave $15,275 since July 2006, while only Professor Kahn gave $150. The Daily also makes the interesting point that Carl Cohen has donated only $2400, and nothing since 2004 (of course, Carl's contributions in time have been much more dramatic). The Daily lists President Mary Sue Coleman's, and her husband Ken Coleman's, donations, of roughly $5000, and the $500 donation of Ted Shaw, Director of Admissions.

Here's what I say. It is surprising low numbers for these supposed defenders of preferences. I expected far more. The Coleman's make more than a half-million a year from taxpayers as President of U-M. Shaw makes six figures, and if my memory serves, close to $200K. As they say, "where's the beef?" "Show me the money." "Put your money where your mouth is."

These paltry amounts from the world-leaders of the preference movement suggest lip-service to the cause, even more so than the lip service paid by major corporations. I'd expect a Mary Sue Coleman to give in the 50K range, if she really believes. At this point in the game, it won't matter, but I think the whole thing is rather telling, moreso than the grand totals and other intricacies of the report.

Willie Pelote, a union lobbyist-organizer for the Sacramento, California based-local chapter of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), created on October 7, 2006, a Michigan independent political committee called the "AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES MI BALLOT". He then dissolved it a mere 10 days later, on October 17, 2006. In the dissolution process, he filed the necessary final (and only, in this case) report of the committee's activities.

What's interesting about this?

First, a google search of Pelote quickly reveals that he and the local-California AFSCME support the "Clean Money" ballot-initiative currently before the California voters. That would completely transform California into a publicly-financed elections system. Zarko Research makes no comment on the value of such a law - it certainly has many pros and significant cons and would depend much on how it was implemented and what loopholes may or may not exist (given the First Amendment's requirements, public financing with the continued existence of Jon Stryker types of "independent expenditure" investors, would be destructive). However, Pelote touts these proposals citing lofty proclamations about money in politics. But at the very same time Pelote dumped $273,864.50 in almost entirely California city-chapter donations into his Michigan political action committee, and then refunded $173,864.50 into his AFSCME - CA ISSUES (presumably a California ballot-committee) and gave on October 10, 2006 $100,000 to Michigan's One United Michigan.

Now that's an interesting shell game. First, what's the average AFSCME union members deep interest in defeating a Michigan ballot initiative - - one, in fact, identical to something California already passed (it's not like they would be "stopping the tide" from reaching California, the direction is the other way). So it seems Pelote probably has something personal against Ward Connerly, and there's irony in a guy like Pelote who throws around cash like he does, supporting public financing. That's also a good chunk of "out-of-state" money One United Michigan is willing to take, after assailing Ward for doing the same thing. That's the whole point - who cares. In America, out-of-staters are entitled to participate in the process just as anyone else. It's the nature of freedom of commerce and speech. But's it's interesting inside-baseball and hypocrisy - attacking Proposal 2 (MCRI, or the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative) for doing one thing and then doing the same thing. Second, did Pelote use MCRI as the reason for fundraising in getting his chapter to donate to the larger entity, and then pull the bait-and-switch and move that money into other California based uses? Why not give it back, rather than give it to his other PAC? If I was a union-member (or the California elections director!), I'd want to the know the answer to that question. It might even constitute fraud (the real kind), if the answers were wrong.

But what is more interesting is that One United Michigan (OUM) is caught here in an either/or - either a slam-dunk inaccuracy of its campaign report or tremendous negligence in its planning, timing, and media buy strategy. Rarely do we have two committees reporting donations and receipts so that we can cross-check them. But here we do. And One United reports a contribution of $100,000.00 from "AFCME 555 APITOL MALL STE. 1425" [sic], on October 20, 2006 - that's a 10 day difference. AFCME and "Apitol" are misspelled, which may just be a coincidence or maybe a diversion. But the dates are 10 days apart, and additionall, three days after the AFSCME committee dissolved. Is it possible Pelote dropped a check in the mail and it took 10 days to arrive (date of physical receipt being the legal test, not date of check)? Sure. But even the Post Office is 99% of the time faster than that, and it seems unfathomable to me, as a former Treasurer, that I wouldn't put such a check of such size in a next day or two day FedEx, especially at such a critical moment in the campaign (it is probably too late today to actually buy media time for the election, and at that juncture the campaign would have been on the time-bubble). With a check that size, it was either a bone-headed moved to mail it, or a dating error by OUM. Additionally, with 10/20 being the closing the date of the report and the fact that OUM's balance was less than the amount of that check ($35,000), the coincidences are high. OUM must have committed to spend that $100,000, along with every other less donation it claims to have received in the last few days, before 10/20. It's final payment to Mundy Katowitz Media Inc. (a Washington D.C. media buyer) was $750,000, also dated 10/20. When you're moving around 3 million dollars and you succeed in spending it down to the last dime or so (actually $35,000) based on an artificial filing deadline, that margin is much less than the margin of the most questionable date, the reason for concern is high.

This all suggests to me that something unaccounted for occurred in the last week, in addition to the likely and interesting personal battle between Sacramento's Willie Pelote and Sacramento's Ward Connerly, and the hypocrisy from OUM it represents.

The reports contain a number of other gems and detailed pieces of information, but the whole issue will be lost in the larger media calvacade on the issue that is now found daily through google, watching TV (yeah, there's an interesting OUM commercial that I'll report on later).

The biggest campaign finance news of the day is Kalamazoo-mega-millionairre Jon L. Stryker's entry into the political scene in the biggest of ways. He has set a record of personal donations totalling over $4 million (probably more, its still being sorted out) in funds to "Independent PACs", which have funded "independent expenditures" for Democrats throughout the state, in huge amounts. There will be more to be blogged on this.

Regardless, the 2 minute warning scorecard on Proposal 2 is out. First, spending on Proposal 5, the K-16 money grab, has outpaced even Proposal 2, which may surprise some. Ironically, most of that money is from Washington DC - the NEA has decided that 5 is a cash cow for its members has chipped in over 4 million. Opponents of 5 are at less than half that.

The web of organizations now contending on Proposal 2 is however still much more complicated and interesting. One United Michigan leads with roughly $3.5 million raised and almost all spent (that doesn't mean you've "seen it" yet, since the ad buys can run over time), MCRI at just over a million (including large blocks of in-kind legal donations, so the cash is only about $600K, almost none of which has been spent yet). The new pro-Proposal 2 group Families for a Prosperous Michigan, which ZR exclusively reported on earlier this week, spent a significant $200K on a media buy, but little is know about its nature and if confined to WJR radio (I suspect it wasn't) wouldn't be significant. It appears MCRI spent a similar fair amount on some unknown buys, and we've probably heard them already, but they have a solid reserve to respond to any last minute attack.

The ACLU group reported $100,000 in dedicated staff salaries and other symposium-type events, but nothing meaningful to the ad war. BAMN presents a similar story with about the same amount of in-kind contributions for legal services, but nothing in the way of media expenditures.

The overall picture of OUM's $3.5 million was hinted at earlier in the week by a Time Magazine story quoting Debbie Dingell on some of their difficulties. Analysts expected OUM to have a much higher total, but I don't take too much stock in any of this for a number of reasons.

It should be remembered that the last 10 or so days could result in anything, and campaign finance law is so-relatively weak that even the reports we are reading may not be accurate. I would not base a professional-prediction on the outcome on any of this - however, I will be blogging a number of entries over the next fews days about the nature of this money. I'm creating a new section, which certainly will endure the MCRI issue, on "Interesting Money". A blog about "Power, Politics, and Money" certainly can have a focus of original research that follows how that money moves through politics. For now my browser tabs are overloaded and full, and I have to condense these things into something meaningful. The trail is immensely complicated - - and we already have our first anonymous source on this particular issue that has pointed us in one very specific direction, which I'm analyzing before reporting on.