Last we heard in these parts about Rep. Paul Adams (R-Andover) was Ernie’s hilarious takedown of him in l’affaire Cusack. But while perusing the Herald for the latest on Whitey Bulger, I happened upon this tidbit regarding a hearing Tuesday on new gun control measures (emphasis mine):
At a State House hearing held by the Committee on Public Safety, freshman Rep. Paul Adams (R-Andover) weaved in verbatim NRA talking points as he testified against the microstamping legislation, although he didn’t acknowledge that his testimony was based, in part, on the national pro-gun organization’s research. He could not be reached for comment following the hearing.
Adams said “household tools” could be used to file down serial numbers on guns, and in many cases, gun crimes wouldn’t be solved by microstamping. Adams said police in Lawrence, part of which is in his district, haven’t asked for microstamping technology.
Well done of State House News’s Kyle Cheney, who wrote the piece, to point out that Adams is doing little more than parroting talking points he printed from the NRA’s website.
And speaking of “household tools,” remember how Paul Adams mysteriously was able to pump $50,000 into his campaign, even though he had personal assets of far less than that? Adams subsequently explained that his family (hence the droll “household tools” transition into this topic) gave him the money:
The sole source of the approximately $50,000 that is the subject of the OCPF review, whose inquiry I welcome, was my own personal funds. The sources of most of these were tax-exempt gifts from immediate family members.
Now, that’s really interesting. Of course, it is illegal for anyone other than the candidate (or the candidate’s spouse, which Adams doesn’t have) to donate more than $500 to a campaign in Massachusetts. So it seems that what happened here is that several people in Adams’ family each gave him a (legal) gift of, say, $10,000 (to keep it below the tax reporting threshold), and Adams then turned around and deposited those gifts into his campaign account.
Can you really do that? If you can, it sure seems like an incredibly easy way to blow a gigantic hole into MA campaign finance law. Are you a rich guy who wants to help elect Joe, but who’s frustrated with MA’s $500 contribution limit? No problem! Just give Joe a “gift” of $10,000. If Joe then “chooses” to funnel that money into his campaign account, mission accomplished.
Reportedly, OCPF is investigating this situation; of course, OCPF will not confirm or deny anything until it’s resolved. The legal question, I would think, is whether OCPF’s “true source” rule covers the situation outlined above. The statute – which is a criminal statute, by the way – reads:
No person shall, directly or indirectly, make a campaign contribution in any name except his own nor in any manner for the purpose of disguising the true origin of the contribution…. No candidate or political committee or person acting under its authority or in its behalf shall knowingly receive a campaign contribution, or knowingly enter or cause the same to be entered in the accounts or records of such candidate or committee, unless the provisions of this section have been complied with.
Violation of any provision of this section shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.
Won’t it be interesting to see what OCPF comes up with on this? Meantime, though, we can all look forward to hearing Adams read more NRA talking points into the record. Cheers to that.
I am sure the IRS is going to be curious to see whether the funds really originated from a single relative who funneled it through other relatives to get around the gift limit. Adam’s relatives shouldn’t be overly shocked if they get audited.
…as long as a candidate can spend unlimited out of pocket. When I ran for local office I spent entirely out of pocket without a committee, though reporting forms appeared to indicate I could do some self-funding even if I had a committee. Even the IRS comment above I think can only go so far. I’m tempted to claim the it’s a free country defense. Should either OCPF or the IRS really be making it their business to know how much money is being exchanged among relatives, or even personal friends? Sounds very big brother to me.
Fraudulent conveyance laws – which render illegal (or, at least, fraudulent) – transfers of assets that would otherwise be legal but that are clearly designed to shield assets from creditors – go back literally hundreds of years. The first such law dates to 1570, and variations on that general theme are in force in all fifty states, and are a critical component of federal bankruptcy law.
Frankly, the facts described by Adams himself don’t look all that different to me than those presented in an ordinary fraudulent transfer, except that the intent isn’t to defraud creditors, but rather to end-run the campaign finance laws. In the former case, the law has plenty to say about it. We’ll soon know about the latter case.
Probably the only real way to prevent it is to apply personal contribution limits to the candidate himself. There is of course always the public financing option and render this moot entirely.
Fraudulent transfer laws in general? That’s a lot of history to argue with. Fact is, those laws are an absolutely essential component of debtor/creditor law.
If you mean you don’t like the principle of sham transactions being applied in the campaign finance setting, that’s arguably a different question, though I have a hard time seeing why it should be OK in one context and not OK in the other.
“apply personal contribution limits to the candidate himself”
Almost certainly a First Amendment violation.
“There is of course always the public financing option”
For another week or so, anyway.
…this is why I advocate sales rather than income taxes. That way, the government need not know or care how or from where you get your money, just that you have the capacity to spend it.
between friends?
Remember when the Glodis campaign imploded over a $20,000 personal loan from a friend that was then funneled into his campaign?
Same thing here, just gifts instead of loans. Regardless of the ultimate legal outcome, the voting public is smart enough to know this is inappropriate behavior, and Adams will be punished at the polls next year as long as he gets a decent opponent.
I mean, we live in the Bulger Epoch now, so naturally we want to know exactly what family it that is implicated in his freelordship’s “tax-exempt gifts from immediate family members.”
Happy days.
(( Over at _The Eagle Tribune_ Comrade Eddings must be pleased as Punch about “Slanderous articles in one media outlet authored by one rogue reporter” &c. &c. The sweet puppies of Endarkenment are never so cute as when they start self-sorrowin’ like that. ))