I watched some of the House Rules Committee hearing yesterday, and my heart swelled when I listened to Chairman McGovern’s closing statement. I made my own clip of what I considered the best part of it – please take 3 minutes to watch. I’m not in McGovern’s district, but I have met him several times, and often wish he were my rep instead of Trahan.
Please share widely!
This is good stuff. Thanks for sharing.
You’re welcome, Charley! I wish I could make this video go viral.
Always nice to see Massachusetts being defended on a national stage.
I don’t understand the dig at Trahan. I know you’ve never liked her though not sure why. Has she ever voted differently from McGovern, or bucked the party?
Wow Christopher, I totally predicted this – you just can’t let it go, can you?!
Firstly, I don’t have to justify my dislike of Trahan to you or anyone else….especially when I have tried to talk to you about it in the past, you just call me a “purist”. I’m Progressive and proud of it, and you’re damn straight I’m gonna call out people who are Fauxgressives. And people who are followers, not leaders.
Secondly, you seem to think that her campaign finance violations are a big nothing burger. I’ll be posting about this soon, and I fully expect you to bitch and moan about it as usual.
And to answer your question, YES, she has voted differently from McGovern. She just voted in favor of Trump’s disgustingly bloated $738 BILLION defense budget, while McGovern was only one of 48 Reps and 8 Senators who did not. (Kudos to Reps Pressley and Kennedy, and Sen. Markey, who were the only other Nays from the MA Delegation – Sen. Warren did not vote.)
Thank you for at least answering my question about voting differences with an example. You’re right that I see her alleged finance violations as much ado about not very much. You were the one who brought up Trahan when you did not need to to make your point. I’m also not sure why you have taken these disagreements so personally. That was never my intent at all:)
Her campaign finance violations really ARE egregious, whether you admit that or not.
My understanding is that she and her husband (gasp!) manage a joint bank account as lots of married couples do. She used that bank account which partly belongs to her to fund her campaign and since there are no limits on how much you can contribute to your own campaign I don’t see the issue.
The Ethics complaint against Ms. Trahan is clear and easy to understand. That’s one reason that the committee vote to issue the complaint was 5-0 with 1 abstention.
The law is quite clear: contributions from her husband are just like contributions from any other donor. His income is different from her income. She used money that she did not have and that could only have come from him. That is against the law.
The account status is irrelevant. If contribution limits could be avoided merely by using a joint account with the contributor, than every candidate would simply open a joint account with the deep-pocketed donor.
It doesn’t matter whether you like the law or not, what Ms. Trahan did violates the law.
I think we could easily tweak the law to recognize the common practice of joint accounts for married couples and not for random pairings for political convenience. As a practical matter I just think we need to consider the spirit and intent of the law. The reason we limit individual contributions is to prevent someone from having undue or outsized influence on a candidate. Do you really think that her husband is going to gain some influence he doesn’t already have because she dipped into their joint account? Let common sense prevail here. I also have this nagging suspicion that we would not be asking these questions about a male candidate/office holder who shares and account with his wife.
If you’re going to argue that corruption isn’t a problem unless it’s illegal, then — unless you don’t view illegal campaign funding as corruption — you can’t also claim that illegal corruption isn’t an issue.
I’m not at all sure the change you suggest is a “tweak”. The first example that comes to mind for me is someone who runs for office after term limits have forced their spouse to vacate — Lurleen Wallace, for example.
I’m not sure you read the report I linked to above. I call your attention to these excerpts (emphasis mine):
The complaint also documents the numerous examples where Ms. Trahan and her husband stonewalled the ethics committee, The committee “could not determine whether there were any additional underlying circumstances for the money transfers.” (page 9 of 16)
This report documents, with footnotes and check images, what amounts to a money-laundering operation, with David Trahan collecting money in his business account (“DCT Development, Inc.”), then funneling that into the joint account where those funds were then withdrawn by Ms. Trahan and transfered to the compaign. Ms. Trahan lied about her own personal income (from “Concire, LLC”) in an apparent effort to hide these transactions.
It is easy to imagine scenarios where unsavory characters might use this illegal channel to improperly influence Ms. Trahan.
There is no question, from reading this report, that Ms. Trahan, her husband, and her campaign committee intentionally violated the campaign finance and disclosure rules, filed false and misleading forms and reports, and (not surprisingly) stonewalled investigators who caught on to their scheme.
This is the kind of thing that Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman are accused of doing to funnel Russian funds to GOP officials and Rudy Giulliani.
This is no inexperienced legislator innocently running afoul of byzantine campaign finance regulations, easily addressed by a “tweak” of those laws. This is clearly an intentional, protracted, and successful effort to illegally channel $300,000 from unknown sources through Mr. Trahan and through their respective businesses to her campaign committee.
I really don’t see how this is defensible. It is not only corrupt, it is illegal.
Well, I certainly don’t see anything wrong with someone seeking an office after a spouse has been term-limited. I’ve always found Trahan’s explanations to be forthright (I have personally asked her these questions.). I’m not sure you can prove intent with errors and if there are such errors fine – amend the reports and move on. It still sounds like money her husband had control over anyway and what date he transferred accounts, I don’t know, I just can’t get myself worked up over.. I certainly do not see it as corrupting influence, which is the point of these laws.
I’m sorry, Christopher, but that response is itself as corrupt as any response offered by Kelly Conway.
The law is the law. We know that Vladimir Putin routed one million dollars through Dmitri Firtash, Rudy Giuliani, Lev Parnas, and others into illegal PACS and direct contributions to GOP elected officials and candidates as recently as this fall. All the evidence suggests that the Russian corruption is increasing, not decreasing.
The posture you offer — “It sounds like money her husband had control over anyway” — is an invitation for the same sort of corrupt Russian money to buy candidates like Ms. Trahan.
I categorically reject your contention that this behavior is not evidence of corruption. To the contrary, as with your defense of the Mr. DeLeo’s actions in the Probation Department Scandal, I see your posture as positively encouraging corruption so long as it benefits a Democrat.
I have MUCH more objection to foreign interference in and contributions to US campaigns than I do money jointly managed by a candidate and her husband. No, the law is not always the law. How often does a cop who pulls someone over decide to let the driver off with a warning rather than issuing the ticket the law says he should? If the law is the law then maybe Bill Clinton should have been impeached for perjury about an affair. There are so many examples when the law yields to common sense as well it should. The absolute rule of law can be just as tyrannical as the absolute rule of man.
You don’t know that this money does not originate in from foreign or otherwise objectionable sources. The players have intentionally misled and stonewalled the investigation that would clear them.
Again, you didn’t read the complaint. The ethics committee gave Ms. Trahan, her husband, and the committee months of warnings — warnings that they ignored.
A cop might write a warning for an inspection sticker and tail-light violation the first time. When the same vehicle is repeatedly stopped for the same violations over a period of months, then a cop who doesn’t write a ticket IS corrupt.
What you see as “common sense” others see as simply enabling corruption.
I agree the Trahans should co-operate with the investigation, but the source of her husband’s income isn’t any more relevant than the source of her own would be.
When her husband is contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars while the campaign limit is $2,700, blocking all inquiry into the source of that income, and channeling income from those unknown sources through a blind LLC, then the source of his income certainly IS relevant to anyone who actually cares about campaign finance reform.
But what if it were a company SHE owned and from which she drew her entire income? Once it is her money she can use as much as she wants for her own campaign. Are you suggesting that we should consider all of her business clients as contributors to her campaign and thus subject to disclosures and limitations? That would only make sense if we applied the contribution limits to the candidate oneself. The law has always recognized the concept of income made by either half of a married couple as joint property. Therefore, it stands to reason that his income could be considered just as much hers as well.
Thanks for chiming in, Tom. I certainly did not have the time nor patience to do it, esp. when it comes to trying to convince Christopher that what Trahan did was wrong. He just keeps burying his head in the sand, why, I don’t know.
Nobody wants to admit that a friend or loved one has committed a crime, especially a crime involving venal or political corruption.
I interpret Christopher’s response as a reflection of his personal friendship with and support for Ms. Trahan. I disagree with it, but I see it as an expression of loyalty more than anything else.
I view his response as exemplifying why we seek neutral and independent parties as participants in inquiries, investigations, and similar legal proceedings. If Christopher were responsible in some capacity beyond commenting on a blog, I would expect him to recuse himself from proceedings involving Ms. Trahan.
I don’t see this as any sort of criticism or condemnation. I see it instead as a manifestation of basic human nature. It is why the concept of recusal exists, and why we allow biased jurors to be removed.
I’m not THAT close to her. As with Betsey she was not my first choice in the 2018 primary (or in my top 3 for that matter). I also check myself to see if I’d be OK with a Republican doing likewise and I really think I would be given the same set of facts. I would have no reason to recuse myself as I would not stand to benefit either way from a ruling.
I’m trying to signal that my criticism is directed at your view on this issue and not at you personally.
In my view, you are defending corruption. Specifically, you are dismissing felony campaign finance violations as mere “mistakes”, readily fixed by a “tweak” in the law.
For whatever reasons, I fear that you are denying the reality that the ethics committee and at least some of us see as plain as day.
I don’t take it personally. I just think consequences should be proportional to actual rather than theoretical harm.
We don’;t know the actual vs theoretical harm. We have no way of known what external interests might be making these contributions.
There is nothing theoretical about that lack of knowledge.
I don’t see any external interests making campaign contributions. I see a husband’s business having clients, but once their money is in his pockets it becomes his money. The logical extension of what it sounds like you are suggesting is that any candidate or spouse thereof automatically consider business clients to be campaign contributors.
@I see a husband’s business having clients..:
That’s not how it works. Please consider a hypothetical case, to avoid coloring it with feelings about a specific real individual. Representative J. Arthur Random, R-Somewhere, does the same thing. His wife runs a consulting business. John Bad Guy owns an asphalt paving company in Mr. Random’s district and very much wants Mr. Random to turn federal attention away from certain activities of his company. Mr. Guy is also the president of a local consortium of contractors who collectively have very specific desires for some legislative special attention — some carve-outs and exemptions that benefit them at the expense of the general public.
Mr. Guy therefore bundles a significant payment from himself and his collective, totaling $175,000. He then arranges a “consulting contract” with Mr. Random’s wife, conducted over lunch and drinks in a local restaurant that she is known to like. The only problem is that Mr. Random has some filing deadlines that don’t line up with the aggressive schedule that Mr. Guy arranged with his colleagues.
At the conclusion of their very nice lunch, Mr. Random’s wife accepts a check in payment of the “consulting contract”. When Mr. Guy apologizes for the timing, she replies “that’s no problem, we’ll take care of it. I want you to know how much J and I appreciate this.”
Ms. Random then deposits the check and transfers the funds to the joint account shared between her and her husband. He writes check to his campaign committee from that joint account, back-dated to comply with the filing deadlines. He and the committee chair then consult with their attorney about what the filings need to look like in order to be legal, and complete Mr. Random’s filings accordingly (and fraudulently).
The net result is that Mr. Random has accepted an illegal contribution of $175,000 from an “interested party”, in full and intentional violation of campaign finance laws and congressional ethics standards. He has scrupulously complied with the “guidelines” you recommend here.
I think he’s corrupt, I think he should be investigated and prosecuted, and I think his behavior exemplifies the slimy corruption that makes Americans despise politicians of every party.
From your commentary here, you would say “no big deal”, “nothing to get worked up about”. You would say “I see a wife’s business having clients, but once their money is in her pockets it becomes her money.” and “the source of his wife’s income isn’t any more relevant than the source of his own would be”
Scenarios like this are why the existing campaign finance laws are written as they are. Laws that very explicitly address all the concerns you’ve raised. Laws that Ms. Trahan, her husband, and her campaign committee are accused of intentionally and willfully violating over a period of months. Laws that you have asserted require only minor “tweaks” so that they allow scenarios like the one I sketch here.
I think we have to decide whether we support or oppose corruption in our elected officials. If we oppose it, I think we need to act accordingly.
I honestly had trouble following all that. I think the dates need to be kept straight, but that’s easily fixed. Since filing is ongoing I’m not sure why it’s necessary to backdate. If the money isn’t reported in time for one quarter there is always the next quarter. Are you suggesting the consulting business is a shell corporation rather than a legitimate business? You did say the campaign chair consulted with an attorney to make sure it was legal so why did you say it was done fraudulently at the end of the same sentence? If we took the spouse out of the equation and the candidate was the one with the consulting business would that be OK? If so then again, income of spouses is often considered by the law to be joint marital property so I fail to see the distinction.
@Are you suggesting the consulting business is a shell corporation rather than a legitimate business?:
I’m suggesting that people who own mostly-legitimate businesses sometimes use those businesses for illegitimate purposes. Most classic money-laundering schemes work this way. A money-laundering operation only works when the corporation does enough legitimate activity that illegal money laundering is easily obscured by legitimate business activity.
@You did say the campaign chair consulted with an attorney to make sure it was legal so why did you say it was done fraudulently at the end of the same sentence?
People sometimes use lawyers to make something appear to be legal when it isn’t (cf pretty much any advice from Rudy Giuliani to Donald Trump).
When I wrote “He and the committee chair then consult with their attorney about what the filings need to look like in order to be legal”, I meant that they asked their attorney how they should falsify their filings so that the filings would appear to be within the law. A lay person attempting to defraud the government often uses an attorney about what the law requires.
@” If we took the spouse out of the equation and the candidate was the one with the consulting business would that be OK?”
No, but the investigation and charges would be different. If the candidate was the one with the consulting business, then the contractor would be charged with making an illegal contribution. The candidate might be charged with bribery as well.
@income of spouses is often considered by the law to be joint marital property so I fail to see the distinction:
That is why the existing laws so explicitly spell out how assets should be divided for the purposes of these laws. And, by the way, the income of a spouse is explicitly excluded from laws like the Massachusetts child support guidelines.
I think you are overthinking and assuming something nefarious when it is not warranted. I assume candidates are usually employed as they seek office. They are paid by their employer and that becomes their income which they are free to use in their own campaign. If the spouse is employed and they hold a joint account that is income as well. It’s one thing to list your employment as we require for contributors, but not to go back the extra step and know who paid the employer. Many candidates are lawyers whose income comes from working at a firm. Is every client of that firm now considered a campaign contributor because the candidate’s salary from the firm ultimately came from them?
Have you forgotten that this exchange started because the House Ethics Committee issued a formal complaint?
It seems to me that you are trivializing this complaint. An investigation over a period of months — that Ms. Trahan, her husband, and her campaign committee have stonewalled — is surely more substantive than your assumptions.
I agree with you that in the general case all you say is true. Very few candidates end up being the target of complaints like this, and that makes Ms. Trahan a notable exception the general case you discuss here.
I’m really confused by your apparent unwillingness to accept the above report of the House Ethics Committee, together with your abject denial of the facts of the case. That doesn’t sound like your usual style.
I’m sorry, I should have let this go. While I stand by the comments I have made I realize I ended up hijacking the thread. This started as a diary about McGovern’s excellent comments with which I’m very much in agreement.