Public Corruption Transacted in Public

by James C. Sherlock

Want that country club membership but don’t want to write the check for the initial membership fee?

How about the down payment on a vacation home?

Run for office in Virginia. Pay for it with campaign money. You don’t even have to win as long as you spend it during the campaign.

And it’s legal.  Because it’s not illegal.  Just claim that both are meant to host campaign strategy sessions.  Donor confabs.  Anything.

If you win, especially in one of Virginia’s single-party-dominated districts, you can do it every time you run.

Sweet.

Virginia is the only state that allows candidates to raise unlimited funds and spend that money on personal expenses. The only one.

General Assembly Democrats and Republicans take turns killing legislation to change the law. Bipartisan at last.

That is public corruption transacted in public.

And they don’t care.

2021 – Democrats’ and Senate’s turn.  Democrats, who changed every other law they wished in 2020 and 2021, did not change that one.

In 2021 they considered HB 1952 Campaign finance; prohibited personal use.  

It added a listof items that were not a violation of campaign law.  It directed the Attorney General to issue an advisory opinion explaining the provisions of the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act of 2006 that prohibit the personal use of campaign funds.

HB 1952 passed the House 100-0.

In Special Session 1, it was recommitted to Senate Privileges and Elections without a record vote. It was left there.

2023 – Republicans’ and House’s turn. This year Senate Democrats, with a Republican governor and House of Delegates, brought forward SB 1471 Campaign finance; prohibited personal use of campaign funds. It passed the Senate 38-0.

It included lists of both things that campaign funds could be used for and things that they cannot.  The list of items that those funds are prohibited to be used for included, but were not limited to:

“1. A home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
2. A non-campaign-related automobile expense;
3. A country club membership;
4. A vacation or other non-campaign-related trip;
5. A tuition payment;
6. Admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment not associated with election campaign; or
7. Dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or recreational facility.”

When crossed over to the House, it was assigned to Subcommittee 2 of Privileges and Elections.

It was tabled by the vote of the five Republicans on that subcommittee, two of whom had voted in favor of HB 1952 in 2021.

Bottom line. Who knew the General Assembly was capable of that kind of bipartisan orchestration?

It is perhaps the ugliest game played there. Amidst tough competition.

I would name all of the names, and readers can find them in the links above, but it clearly does not matter. General Assembly members, with undeniable coordination among the leadership of both parties in both houses, continue to legalize their own corruption.

Let’s see.

An unlimited campaign donation is converted to a new kitchen. Not even Illinois allows that, at least officially.

Why not just cut out the campaign middle man? Save a lot of paperwork.

I hold the leadership of both parties accountable. I am embarrassed for all of us.

Virginia in its public laws on campaign finance is a third world country.

Updated April 4 at 8:07 AM


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

32 responses to “Public Corruption Transacted in Public”

  1. how_it_works Avatar
    how_it_works

    The “Virginia Way”….

  2. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Hard to say which is worse – the obvious corruption of the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond or the “blind eye” turned to that corruption by the members of the Plantation Elite under the guise of “The Virginia Way”.

    This is a cause that Glenn Youngkin should take up, but won’t. He should use his bully pulpit to hound the politicians, from both parties, who voted down these bills.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Remember, Youngkin “loaned” his campaign $12M.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Repayment of that loan wouldn’t bother me as long as the $12M was used for legitimate campaign costs.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          I had a House caucus member loan his campaign a large sum, at a very high rate, and then take annual interest payments out of his campaign kitty for income. Did it for years. Totally legal. There has been no big scandal and thus no push for reform.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Give us a name… the scandal part coulld start here.

          2. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            He’s been dead and gone for a long time or I wouldn’t have mentioned….

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Well, so if, oh say, Dominion said, “Ya know Gubna, we need … and oh by the way, we’d like to make a campaign donation.” The the campaign takes the money and gives it to the candidate as loan repayment.

          The old law was the loan had to be repaid BEFORE the election, or it became a donation. Now, it’s a pipeline.

          1. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Unlimited donations are a problem. But the subject of this post is politicians spending those campaign donations on personal expenses.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yeah, so in Virginia it’s obvious. Everywhere else it’s couched in a loan payback. Same difference.

      2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Unlike most people, he doesn’t need it back.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Need isn’t the issue. It’s a pipeline. Read the Cruz decision and especially Kagan’s objection in the minority opinion.

          Briefly, it used to be candidates would loan their campaign money. Usually, the point was for “look I’ve got skin in the game” announcements. The campaign could use some, all, or let it sit in reserve. The campaign finance law stated something akin to, “one week before election day the candidate could get some or all back with interest., i.e., call the loan. That money not paid back by that drop dead date became a donation”.

          Cruz challenged that and the SCOTUS agreed that the loan should continue past the election.

          Kagan argued that this then became a pipeline. The campaign could spend all, say $12M, and now donations (aka bribes) made to the previous campaign could channel straight into the now sitting official’s pocket.

          Get it?

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      I agree he should. But it is undeniably complicated in his case by the truth in the retort “easy for you to say”.

      He should do it anyway.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Yes, he should. He can’t run for immediate reelection and his national ambitions would be greatly enhanced if he was seen as a serious reformer of corrupt government.

    3. how_it_works Avatar
      how_it_works

      The “Virginia Way”…proof that putting lipstick on a pig does not change the fact that you have put lipstick on a pig.

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    It’s the only one that obvious.

    The SCOTUS ended the limits on repaying loans to your campaign. Before the SCOTUS ruling f/b/o Ted Cruz, it was either repaid just before election day or converted to a donation. Now, it can be an indefinite loan (with interest) that creates a direct conduit from those seeking favor straight into an elected official’s wallet.

    So, for example and not saying he’s doing anything nefarious, Youngkin loaned his campaign 12 million dollars. If the campaign hasn’t repaid that loan, then Dominion could make a donation for favor to the campaign, and the campaign now pays back some (or all, depending on the size of the favor, er, I meant donation) of the loan straight into Youngkin’s wallet (with interest).

    A Great Country, no?

  4. I’m not defending the law that allows politicians to convert campaign contributions into personal remuneration. I think such behavior is disgraceful. I’m just curious how often that actually occurs. Would those numbers turn up in the campaign-finance reports? If they don’t, they should. Virginia needs full transparency.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2016/02/19/where-virginia-politicians-spend-their-money/

      “Former GOP Sen. Walter Stosch gave an aide a $10,000 retirement gift from his campaign account before he retired at the beginning of this year. Stosch said the payment helped make up for years of low pay.”

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/no-rules-means-no-accountability-for-virginia-campaign-funds/

      “An Associated Press review of the state’s finance system turned up examples like Chesapeake Democrat Del. Lionell Spruill, who hasn’t faced an opponent in two decades.

      Since 2011, Spruill has spent $300,000 from his campaign account on numerous luxuries: a membership in a private business club, meals at Ruth’s Chris steakhouses around the country, and more than $2,000 at high-end Richmond restaurants during legislative sessions. More than 90 percent of the money Spruill raised came from corporations, trade organizations or special interest groups.

      Spruill, who has not listed an outside income in years, declined to comment.”

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Democrat. Different rules. Duh. His voters do not care.

    3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Here https://www.elections.virginia.gov/media/formswarehouse/campaign-finance/2018/campaignfinance/schedules/2014Schedule-D.pdf
      is the campaign finance expenditure report.

      There are five columns:

      PERSON OR COMPANY PAID
      ITEM OR SERVICE
      NAME OF PERSON AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE
      DATE OF EXPENDITURE
      AMOUNT PAID

      Since nothing is illegal, there would be no reason to fill it out falsely.

      It also does not provide enough information to answer your question about whether the purchase was for the campaign or for the candidate’s personal use or benefit.

      1. WayneS Avatar

        There might not be any legal reason to falsify that form, but there might be political reasons.

        Even the most cynical voter might turn against “Joe Candidate “if they saw the following on one of those forms:

        PERSON OR COMPANY PAID: Società Esercizio Fabbriche Automobili e Corse Ferrari–SEFAC S.p.A

        ITEM OR SERVICE: 2022 Ferrari 812 GTS Competizione

        NAME OF PERSON AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE: Joe Candidate

        DATE OF EXPENDITURE: 11/01/2021

        AMOUNT PAID: $632,456.19

        I think it’s pretty clear whose use or benefit that little expenditure would be for.

    4. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      I did FEC compliance and separation of functions on a Congressional campaign at the request of the District Committee. That was because the Committee was concerned that a low wealth candidate with his wife as Campaign Treasurer was spending campaign contributions on personal expenses.

      At times it was a struggle, but I did insert a 3rd person in the process between the candidate and Treasurer to authorize all spending. That did not make me popular, but it did keep the campaign clean and the District Committee/State Party from being embarrassed by inappropriate self dealing.

  5. WayneS Avatar

    But what would become of the ‘Privileges and Elections’ Committees if they started doing away with the privileges?

  6. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    Agreed. I’ve watched for 2 years, the R crew do it. That is what makes me say, you should be forced to campaign on that.

  7. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
    Ronnie Chappell

    Sad. And embarrassing.

  8. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
    Virginia Gentleman

    This is one that we can all agree on. It will never change until people demand it change – and unfortunately, we don’t have enough people paying that close attention.

    1. LesGabriel Avatar
      LesGabriel

      Is there an organization willing to do a survey asking candidates (in primaries and the general elections) for their views and commitment to vote to do real reform on this issue?

  9. WayneS Avatar

    Do they pay income taxes on the money they use for personal expenditures?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      That’s between them and the IRS. 🙂

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        And Virginia Tax.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      If Al Capone had only paid tax on his profits from bootlegging.

Leave a Reply