Coleman bid to have campaign pay personal lawyers draws formal objection
Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Norm Coleman shouldn’t be able to use campaign funds to pay lawyers for work related to cases in which he’s not a defendant and hasn’t even been called as a witness. That’s what Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) told the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today.
Coleman has asked the FEC for an opinion as to whether federal law lets him tap his campaign accounts to cover legal expenses in a pair of civil lawsuits that allege a friend, campaign donor Nasser Kazeminy, funneled his family an unreported $75,000.
In its argument (pdf) CREW cites past FEC opinions, including one that refused to approve the use of campaign funds to pay U.S. Sen. David Vitter’s lawyers for their efforts to repel a subpoena that would require him to testify in a criminal proceeding.
CREW asserts that it would be unprecedented for the FEC to allow Coleman to pay lawyers before he has even been asked to testify:
Indeed, the Commission has never allowed a candidate/officeholder to use campaign funds to pay such legal fees before the candidate/office holder’s testimony was compelled or actually given.
At a minimum, CREW asks the FEC to deny Coleman approval for spending money from his recount committee’s account on lawsuits unrelated to the recount. In an opinion sought be Coleman’s Democratic rival, Al Franken, commissioners ruled that recount funds may only be spent on recount-related expenses.
CREW notes that Coleman has shifted more than $300,000 from the Coleman Minnesota Recount Committee to the Coleman for Senate ’08 account and speculates that the latter account may be mostly made up of funds from the former at this point.
Interestingly, CREW cites Coleman’s request to the FEC as having been filed April 3, the date that appears on his letter requesting an advisory opinion — rather than May 12, the date on which the FEC posted Coleman’s request on its website.
The FEC is required to reply within 60 days to a request from a candidate or office-holder. Were the FEC to start its clock at the date CREW cites, commissioners would have to issue a ruling within days of oral arguments in Coleman’s election-contest appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court set for June 1.
Coleman’s campaign said back-and-forth with the FEC over paperwork delayed a request he promised to make in December.
CREW filed a complaint with the Senate ethics committee last summer after revelations that Kazeminy paid for Coleman’s suits. The former senator’s request also asked the FEC to rule on whether he could spend campaign money on expenses related to that complaint.
Coleman received a “dishonorable mention” on CREW’s list of the most corrupt members of Congress last year.
CREW has also been a fierce critic of the FEC and its commissioners, urging President Obama to follow through on campaign promises to reform the agency.
3 Comments
Comment posted May 19, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
That list is a joke. Stevens is on it and the prosecuting team was reamed by the judge in Stevens case basically calling the Stevens case a “partisan hatchet job.” I also find it funny that Coleman is renting out basically a closet at a friends house in D.C. but is somehow guilty of favoratism? C’mon, let’s get real here. This nitpicking in politics about buying suits, plane rides, price of rent, really is just plain nitpicking by groups such as this run by people who can’t get a real job, sort of like an ACLU lawyer, can’t make it in the real world and graduated at the bottom of their class and somehow slipped through the bar exam.
Comment posted May 20, 2009 @ 8:32 am
“…I also find it funny that Coleman is renting out basically a closet at a friends house in D.C. …”
Yeah, “right.”
The MLS for W.D.C. shows the property sold for $989.000 on March 15th, 2007; it also shows that what you call “basically a closet” is in fact a legally-licensed seperate rental unit – complete with seperate electric meters.
And it’s telling that Coleman has never offered up copies of utility bills for his D.C. rental unit; proving – once and for all – just exactly who paid for the utilities at that legally licensed seperate rental unit.
I’m guessing the reason Coleman hasn’t offered up copies, even though on August 4th, 2008 Coleman’s spokesman (Mark Drake) said he’d check, is because Coleman did NOT pay for those utilities – which, of course, would be another problem for Coleman.
Those concerned with the rules, regulations, and laws as actually written, are concerned that Coleman broke more than just a few.
Suits, rent, utility bills, unearned income – maybe that’s “nitpicking” on the “right” side of the aisle when done by someone from the “right” side of the aisle; personally, I’d like to hear what a magistrate calls it.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.






