Subscribe to our feeds!
Did you miss this bombshell at yesterday's Gov. Easley hearings?
Submitted by ChrisKromm on Fri, 10/30/2009 - 8:36am
You might have missed it -- the media largely has -- but in the final hours of testimony yesterday at the N.C. State Board of Elections' hearings into former Gov. Michael Easley (D), Democratic attorneys unleashed an unexpected bombshell: Testimony from a former IRS criminal investigator that at least three Republican candidates for governor failed to disclose dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of campaign flights in 2004 and 2008, the very charge that helped launch the investigation into Easley.
Facing South has obtained a copy of the affidavit filed by Anthony Asbridge, an accountant who for 22 years was a Special Agent with the Internal Revenue Service.
In the document, Asbridge reveals that three Republican gubernatorial candidates -- Patrick Ballantine, Fred Smith and Bill Graham -- flew on private aircraft for flights that were either confirmed or likely campaign stops across the state, but none of the flights appear on their campaign finance reports.
The debate over in-kind services like flights given to candidates has been a focal point of the Easley hearings this week. Election law requires that such gifts be disclosed in campaign finance reports. An influential series in the Raleigh News & Observer into Easley's supposed abuse of "executive privilege" this spring opened by detailing 25 unreported flights by Easley that "skirted the law."
But Asbridge's affidavit suggests that Easley was far from alone:
* BALLANTINE FOR GOVERNOR: State legislator Patrick Ballantine was the Republican nominee for govenor in 2004. The affidavit states that "Patrick Ballantine, on or about July 27, 2004, conducted an eight (8) city campaign tour by airplane, visiting, among others, the town of Wilmington, Manteo, and Greenville." However, Asbridge states:
I have examined the reports immediately preceding the subsequent to the flight and do not see any reported expenditure or in-kind contribution which would appear to report the expense for such air travel. I have also examined the reports of the North Carolina Republican Party for the same period and found no such expenses.
* FRED SMITH FOR GOVERNOR 2008 COMMITTEE: Fred Smith was a Republican candidate for governor in 2008, when he lost in the primaries. According to the affidavit:
Mr. Smith, during the course of his candidacy, announced his intention to visit each of the one hundred (100) counties in the State, and, in news accounts, he claimed to have done so. He also indicated in statements contined in news accounts that he traveled from his home in the Clayton, North Carolina area to manhy of these events so as to be able to return home in the evening, utilizing a Cessna Citation, which he had purchased.
Even if a candidate personally owns the plane, it still must be reported. But when Asbridge examined Smith's campaign records, he could "find no report of any payment for air travel or any in-kind contribution by Mr. Smith relating to such air travel."
Digging through official flight records, Asbridge found 106 flights made by Smith's plane between March 2007 and February 2008 -- flights made during the height of Smith's campaign. However, because they weren't properly reported, it's unclear which flights were directly used for campaign activities.
* GRAHAM FOR GOVERNOR COMMITTEE, INC.: Salisbury attorney Bill Graham was also a GOP candidate for governor eliminated in the 2008 primaries. Investigator Asbridge found over 150 flights made by Graham on a private Beech aircraft -- at least partially owned by Graham -- between January 2007 and May 2008.
Yet an examination of Graham's campaign records finds "no report of any disbursement for the payment of air travel ... nor any report of any in-kind contribution" for the flights.
Asbridge's charges raise a larger question: How did the media, which relentlessly singled out Easley's activities as a uniquely dangerous example of "executive privilege," political corruption and personal arrogance, fail to discover or report on widespread evidence that other candidates were engaging in the same practices?
Equal Opportunity
I suppose if there is a difference here, it is the higher standard we should hold our elected officials to. From what I know of this whole thing, ALL of the alleged violations occurred while Easley was our Governor. Especially considering he used to be our Attorney General, he really should be held to a higher standard. I don't care what party Easley was from, he apparently did some really stupid stuff with his campaign finances as well as in his capacity as Governor. The influence of the almighty dollar does not stop at party lines.
Not intending to excuse Easley
Just to be clear, the purpose of my post isn't to let Easley and the Dem Party off the hook for anything they did wrong.
However, I am troubled by the media narrative that somehow depicts Easley and the Dems as uniquely bad actors in the realm of campaign finance. The undisclosed flights issue, which are really what set the investigation off, are a clear example of where Easley and the Dems clearly *weren't* uniquely bad -- in fact, what evidence we have suggests the Republicans may have abused the system far worse.
There are another set of issues -- his wife's job at NC State, the land deals, etc. -- where "executive privilege" definitely came into play. But we need to be clear about when those labels apply, and when they don't.
I hate this kind of thinking
It is counterproductive when one party says: "well, the other party/elected officials did it too".
I am sure there have been things done illegal by republicans in the same way (or similar) that Easley did things. Democrats, however, have been in power in our state for eons. Republicans? Well, they had a very short stint in that respect and even though they most certainly can be proven to have broken laws like Easley did, are we not better than that? Do we not want to stop that kind of abuse of power? Are we not all about making sure our politicians are not crooks?
If our only defense is that some other party member/elected official did illegal activity so we should be given a break by doing the same, what does that say about our political system in North Carolina?
Who here does not think that Easley should be prosecuted and if guilty should suffer the consequences of his actions? This is more than "party politics". When will we, as citizens, take a stance? Only when it is the "other party" that is doing wrong? Let's think about this.
___________________________________________________
“Politicians and diapers should be changed regularly
and for the same reason.” Mark Twain
Abuse of power
Arbitrary and capricious application of the law is also an abuse of power. It's not an excuse. Just because everyone else is speeding doesn't mean I should get a pass on my ticket. When there is ambiguity about whether a law applies it is worth making comparisons, especially with other candidates when the issue of flights relates to candicacy. However, after 2004 there was less ambiguity.
Read from bottom of page 15, top of 16:
North Carolina Democratic Party's Request for Advisory Opinion pursuant to NC GS. § 163-27.23 on Use of Private Aircraft
So, then, the Easley scrutiny is justified
Thanks, gregflynn.
___________________________________________________
“Politicians and diapers should be changed regularly
and for the same reason.” Mark Twain
Isn't the U.S. Attorney in charge of all of this a Republican?
I thought I remembered something about a decision to hold off on replacing him until this investigation/prosecution was completed. Would he have also been responsible for looking at the Republicans? Might he have turned a blind eye?
***************************
Currently lacking a witty signature.
Multiple standards
In general the issues related to candidates are a matter for state election law dealt with by the Board of Elections and sometimes refered to the Wake County DA. The use of aircraft for campaign purposes would be in this category, regardless of the election result. All candidates should be held to that standard.
There are additional standards that apply to office holders, elected and appointed. The Feds have been investigating specific issues related to public office. If there are tax issues connected with the use of aircraft and allocation of expenses, revenue or losses between corporate, individual and political entities they would probably also appear on the Fed radar.
Just tell a good story
That's the rule in writing - books, films, news, and investigations.
The truth and actual application of the law is secondary. Always is. Even for prosecutors and defense attorneys.
To find the truth yourself, learn the campaign law as it is and as it was at the time(s), and review the reports yourself.
Scott Falmlen virtually gave a class on a decade of campaign finance law in his time at hearing yesterday. His dissertation clearly showed BOE members incapable of understanding the constantly changing law they're charged with overseeing, much less their usage of simple campaign finance terminology.
Depending on the Board of Elections staff or members, the judicial system, media outlets, partisan hacks from either side or anyone else for an understanding of the situation is at its very best, still incomplete.
Political consultants often advise aspiring candidates, with a great deal of polling to back it up, that voters already think all politicians are thoroughly corrupt - no matter how squeaky clean they may actually be. Such beliefs cut across partisan lines, political centers (Raleigh, DC), and other demos.
It's just the nature of the beast.
In short, enjoy the latest version of the oldest story.
That's all this ever was.
Anyone taking bets on if the much more substansive business of revising the state's antiquated tax code gets half the press next week this hearing got this week?
FYI
Fred Smith and Bill Graham own or co-own the planes they were flying on. The board apparently has said that's akin to driving your own car and not reporting it. So you can knock 2 out of the 3 candidates in question out of the running for violations on that one.
As Ballantine, that's still up in the air as far as I can tell.