Coingate

[iaafan]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/p ... oin05.html

This looks like another interesting political development. I wonder how it will turn out? Will the Ohio democrats be caught making Noe look like or crook? Or is Noe up to something? Did he steal the Ohio taxpayers money and give it to the GOP? Or is he being framed?

Just curious to see what everyone's thoughts and opinions are.

[WYCAT]

Pretty interesting article. I think campaign funding in general is a huge joke right now but unfortunately is just how the system works now within both parties. I think that is one thing the Republicans did very "well" this year and part of the reason Bush was re-elected. They beat the bushes, no pun intended, and rallied voters like the Democrats have done so well recently. Should be interesting to see how that comes out.

[mquast53000]

Like this wasn't worse. Gore was the VP for crying out loud. Politicians can't be trusted at any level.

Vice President Al Gore recently was caught with his hand in the fundraising cookie jar. Although he admits mistakes were made, Gore claims the White House counsel cleared his actions. To the contrary!

Vice President Al Gore ignored advice from the White House counsel when he solicited funds from big donors, according to a 1995 White House legal memo. And the first lady's chief of staff, Maggie Williams, may have committed a similar violation. Her actions occurred before the memo, but the memorandum itself purports only to interpret and apply existing law.

In ignoring that advice, Gore may have violated a federal law prohibiting fund-raising activities in federal buildings. The April 27, 1995, memo written by then-White House Counsel Abner J. Mikva to the White House Office of Policy Development and Office of the Vice President provided legal guidelines for federal employees regarding fundraising. The memo warned that violating the guidelines can result in criminal convictions, punishable by prison and substantial fines.

The White House press office provided the Mikva memo to Insight upon which Gore claims he relied when deciding it was legal to solicit funds while sitting in his White House office in an action that has been described by critics as "dialing for dollars." Gore attended Vanderbilt University Law School from 1974 to 1976 but did not earn a law degree.

Mikva, a former federal-appeals judge and now a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, says in the nine-page memo: "Campaign fundraising activities of any kind are prohibited in or from government buildings. In addition, federal employees are prohibited from soliciting or accepting campaign contributions. This means that fund-raising events may not be held in the White House; also, no fundraising phone calls or mail may emanate from the White House or any other federal building."

The White House counsel further warned: "The simplest rule to follow is the `common-sense' practice that anything obviously political that involves the use of resources should be done by the campaign, even if doing it here can be `legally' justified."

Gore claims that he and President Clinton were exempt from the federal law known as the Hatch Act when he was soliciting funds in December 1995 and spring 1996. Originally passed to prevent federal officials from shaking down staffers for political contributions or volunteer hours, the Hatch Act limits political activity by federal employees and bans the mixing of fund-raising and governmental activity.

The Hatch Act was amended in 1993 to give federal employees more freedom to engage in political activities on their own time. Under the 1993 amendments, Section 7324 of the Hatch Act provides that officeholders "paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President" may engage in "political activity while on duty." However, the amendments do not cover soliciting campaign funds. Section 7323 continues to provide that federal employees may not "knowingly solicit accept or receive a political contribution from any person...." An exception is made only for solicitations on behalf of federal labor organizations or federal-employee organizations. These assuredly do not include the Democratic National Committee, or DNC.

The vice president also may wish to reread the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1979. Under the applicable section of that act (Section 607 of Title 18 of the US. Code), Gore is not exempt. Specifically, Section 607 makes it "unlawful for any person to solicit or to receive any contribution within the meaning of Section 301 (8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties [by a federal employee]. Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both." The law clearly was spelled out in the White House's own memo, though legal experts say that section of the law rarely is enforced.

A federal Circuit Court judge who requested anonymity tells Insight that Gore would have to base any criminal defense on the distinction between "general intent" crimes and "specific intent" crimes. A "general intent" criminal statute criminalizes an act, pure and simple, without regard to the defendant's level of knowledge. A "specific intent" criminal statute requires more specific knowledge by the defendant about what he or she is doing before criminal liability can be imposed. But even if violations of the Hatch Act and the Campaign Act require specific intent, Gore may not be off the hook.

"I'd sure like to be the prosecutor questioning Gore on this one,' the judge tells Insight, noting the Mikva legal memo clearly states that "White House telephones must not be used, even locally, for regular committee activities such as recruiting volunteers or fundraising." The Mikva memo also deals with the law as it relates to the conduct of Williams, the first lady's chief of staff, though the advisory was issued after she accepted the donation. She has admitted accepting a $50,000 check at the White House. She gave the check to the DNC, which cashed it about a week later. The Mikva memo advised White House employees that it is illegal to accept such funds and specifically noted that "federal law prohibits the receipt of contributions in federal buildings." The White House claims that Williams did not actually accept the check but merely received it, which they claim is not illegal. Williams was handed the check on March 9, 1995, by California consultant Johnny Chung.

The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1979 legalized the receipt of campaign checks by Capitol Hill staffers in congressional office buildings provided they turn such checks over to an authorized campaign committee within seven days. However, the statute did not extend such legalization to receiving checks at the White House.

Chung has donated about $391,000 to the DNC, most of which was returned because of questionable origins. After donating the $50,000, Chung and six men from the People's Republic of China were allowed to watch Clinton's radio broadcast and were photographed with the president. Some met with then-Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, who headed the U.S. nuclear program. Chung was described in an official White House memo as a "hustler" by a National Security Council official because he allegedly tried to buy access to the president for Chinese executives.

Even the most generous reading of the Mikva memo sharply contradicts Gore's statements during a February news conference when he asserted that he followed the advice of White House counsel. Gore since has backtracked from some of the statements he made in that press conference, claiming he "misspoke" when he said he paid for the solicitation calls with a DNC credit card. He now says he used a Clinton/Gore reelection credit card. The money will be reimbursed, the White House says, because under law the DNC and Clinton/Gore accounts must remain separate.

The White House also has not ruled out the possibility that Clinton may have made some of the phone calls soliciting money. Though recipients of the calls have compared them to extortion, Gore says he never pressured anyone to give to the DNC. Even a state judge tells Insight that getting a call from the White House is pressure enough. The jurist compares it to a judge running for election and making calls from chambers to attorneys demanding support for the campaign. "It is clearly inappropriate," the judge says. "When the White House calls you, you stand up and salute. It's hard to say no. You should not fund-raise from any federal building--ever. I wouldn't want the vice president leaning on me for a contribution."

Attorney General Janet Reno has suggested the 1979 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act may have, in effect, legalized the solicitation of "soft money" in federal buildings. Congress allegedly did this by tying the definition of "contribution" in Section 607 to the definition found in Section 301 (8)--a definition that may exclude "soft money," such as independent expenditures. The contributions being solicited and received in the Gore and Williams cases were for the DNC, not for the Clinton-Gore campaign. This may give Gore and Williams a basis for arguing that their conduct does not come within the prohibition of Section 607.

"That would be Gore and Williams' best criminal defense," says a Washington lawyer with high-level White House experience. "But remember, the whole idea of soft money is that it's supposed to be independent of candidates' campaign operations. It would be ironic if the very people the expenditures are supposed to be 'independent' of are the ones doing the soliciting or the accepting."

[iaafan]

Gore may have been soliciting funds illegally for the purpose of campaigning. Noe may have been taking taxpayer funds and giving them to campaigns.
Both cases are illegal. I kind of think that taking taxpayer funds w/o asking is worse than soliciting funds illegally.
What happened in the Gore case? I assume it has run its course. Was he convicted of anything?