He successfully avoided public scrutiny during the past three decades, so the daily flow of media coverage during the past few months may have proven especially aggravating to Howie Rich of New York City, the "sugar daddy" sponsoring the myriad ballot measures for eminent domain/"regulatory takings" and the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights across the continent. That aggravation compounds the intervention of good public officials doing their jobs, from Missouri's Secretary of State to the Michigan Board of Canvassers to the Supreme Courts of Oklahoma, Nevada and, now, Montana, which upheld last week the ruling of District Court Judge Dirk Sandefur, finding "pervasive fraud" in the circulation of Rich's petitions there.
To the list of national media outlets who have "exposed" Rich's coordination of these activities, now add U.S. News and World Report, the Nation, and the Associated Press. And to the list of governors slamming his TABOR, add now the name of Angus King, the revered former Independent governor of Maine, whose no-nonsense style cuts through the foolish haze surrounding the issue and calls it as it is - in stark contrast, let's observe, to the political contortions of Colorado Governor Bill Owens on the topic.
But first, the eloquence of the Montana Supreme Court: In a unanimous ruling, the Supremes issued a 9,786-word finding that the petition circulations sponsored by Rich, contracted by Trevis Butcher of Winifred and conducted by Susan Johnson's National Voter Outreach, were so rife with "pervasive fraud" that Judge Sandefur was right to strike TABOR and two other measures from the ballot this year. Now, I'm no lawyer, but I can read a court ruling and I know that when the Supreme Court delivers a spanking such as this one, it stings. Page after page of it goes over Sandefur's findings of fact with a fine-toothed comb and affirms them, one by one by one.
And I learned some things from the ruling. For example, "The uncontradicted evidence established that Proponents paid over $633,000.00 to out-of-state signature gatherers who collected signatures for these three initiatives. Individual signature gatherers were paid between fifty-cents and $2.50 per signature per initiative." I wonder who got paid fifty cents per signature and who got paid $2.50 per signature, and who decided the rate of pay for various signature gatherers? And knowing that Eric Rittberg/Eric Dondero told Ray Ring of High Country News that he was down to his last nine bucks, sleeping in his pick-up truck in Wal-Mart parking lots, I wonder if he was one of the fifty-centers?
In one spot, the Supremes appear to ridicule the arguments by the Rich-Butcher team that they didn't get a fair trial. Get this: "[Butcher's attorney's] due process claim rings hollow in light of the multiple respects in which they did not avail themselves of either the time they had or their recourse to the rules of civil procedure. Specifically, [Butcher's team] did not answer Opponents' Complaint, request any discovery, move for a continuance, take any depositions, or file a pre-trial brief." Hmm. Makes you wonder if the ink is dry on Butcher's attorney's diploma.
"[Butcher attorney] did not attend the three depositions conducted by Opponents (though they were scheduled to accommodate the schedule of Proponents' counsel), nor did they file proposed findings of facts or conclusions of law, despite the District Court's request for both from the parties. At the end of the September 5, 2006 scheduling conference, [Butcher's team] acquiesced without objection in the court's proposed schedule, and indicated they would not make any pre-trial motions. [Butcher's team's] efforts at trial were similarly incomplete. They declined to make an opening statement or a closing argument. They opted not to cross-examine Opponents' main witness, Jacqueline Boyle. And, most significantly, their attorney did not object as multiple hearsay statements damaging to [Butcher's] case came into evidence through the witnesses who testified. Under the same time constraints, Opponents conducted three depositions, filed the pre-trial brief and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law suggested by the court, and then fully participated at trial, making appropriate arguments and objections as the rules of evidence allowed."
Wow. In essence, the Supremes are agreeing that there was no fair trial, because one side came ready to do business in this one-day trial and the other side came to watch from the sidelines. It's like a homecoming game where the home team fields its first string and the away team consciously sends its waterboy squad to get slaughtered. Guess which side Butcher was on?
But here's how the Supremes put it, bloodlessly: "We conclude that any deprivation of a meaningful hearing here was more the construct of Proponents' own failure to act than it was a function of the District Court's denial of more time for trial preparation. Opponents timely brought their claims. The District Court was then required by law to expedite the proceedings. Simply put, the District Court proceeded as required by law. We therefore determine that under the circumstances, [Butcher's waterboy squad] received both adequate notice of the allegations against them and an opportunity to participate in a meaningful hearing."
Hey, they also address the question of how much Eric Rittberg/Eric Dondero earned for his time: "The evidence established that Proponents hired and paid up to 43 out-of-state signature gatherers. The signatures gathered by five of these signature gatherers constituted more than half of the total signatures garnered. These gatherers were Larry Shumacher, Grace Meyer, Ron Cook, Eric Rittberg, and Marvin King. These persons were paid on a per-signature basis. Schumacher was paid $84,103.30 for gathering signatures in five Montana counties; Meyer was paid $70,170.94 for collecting signatures in six Montana counties; Cook received $69,214.78 for his signature gathering efforts in six counties; and Rittberg was paid $18,155.68 for unspecified county petition drive efforts." So either Rittberg/Dondero was pounding the pavement for fifty cents a signature, or he didn't do such a great job at signature-gathering. Only $18K, compared to Schumacher's $84K? I have a sneaking suspicion that someone many states away from Montana was tickled at what a great deal they were getting in that case.
I especially enjoyed the Supremes' notes on signature-gatherers' fictitious Montana addresses, which was a big no-no. See, when you sign an affidavit, you're saying that what's inside it is true. When the contents aren't true, well, let's just say you haven't earned your Nilla Wafers and orange juice in Sunday school.
Read this: "The District Court found that all 43 of Proponents' out-of-state paid signature gatherers gave false or fictitious addresses in their certification affidavits submitted under § 13-27-302, MCA. An element of the evidence supporting this finding was a spreadsheet prepared by one of Opponents' witnesses which set forth the names and the claimed addresses of each of Proponents' signature gatherers. Boyle testified that, using an on-line data search engine, she attempted to confirm each address but was unable to do so. She stated that some of the provided addresses were hotels, retail stores or shopping centers; some were apartment complexes or personal residences at which the signature gatherer was not listed as a resident, and some addresses simply did not exist."
That reference to "retail stores or shopping centers" may have reflected Rittberg/Dondero's Wal-Mart overnighters, based on what he told Ray Ring. Still, can you claim a Wal-Mart parking lot as a legal address?
And looky here - the Montana Supremes mentioned Robert Colby, the fella we highlighted in these pixels three months ago: "...District Court relied on the testimony of one of Proponents' professional petition signature gatherers, Robert Colby, who testified at a hearing before the Oklahoma Supreme Court in a similar case. Colby stated under oath in that proceeding that it was a common practice for signature gatherers to use false or fictitious addresses in an effort to conceal personal information, avoid harassment, and `leave no trail.' He admitted to having used a fictitious address while working for Proponents in Montana."
That's bad form, but surely Trevis Butcher would address all of these issues in his testimony, denyin', refutin' and generally puttin' the lie to everything the do-gooders said and did in their complaint, right? Certainly he would. Here, the Supremes tell us, "Butcher, testifying as the sole witness for Proponents, did not refute this evidence."
Oh. Well, maybe not.
"He did testify that he had instructed one of the out-of-state signature gatherers, Marvin King, to use Butcher's sister's home address [Butcher's SISTER'S home address, constant reader!] in Billings, though the circulator was not going to stay there. Butcher stated that King could have used his sister's address as a central drop-off or pick-up location during the petition drive, but presented no evidence that King ever used the address for such purposes. Moreover, evidence was presented that at one point during the petition drive, a Billings police officer stopped at Butcher's sister's house looking for King. Butcher's sister told him that she did not know who King was and that he was not living there."
Constant reader, take a moment to re-read that paragraph. This one passage alone is worth the price of a year's subscription to Mad Magazine.
There's so much more - ye olde Bait and Switch, for example - but we must move on. So here's the nut of the ruling: "The fact remains, however, that if the initiative process is to remain viable and retain its integrity, those invoking it must comply with the laws passed by our Legislature. We can neither excuse nor overlook violations of these laws, for to do so here would confer free reign for others to do so in other matters. We must enforce the law as written and as the Legislature intended. County administrators are instructed not to count the votes for CI-97, CI-98 and I-154 to the extent that this is technically feasible. If the votes must be counted, they will have no force or effect. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Invalidating Certification of CI-98, CI-97, and I-154."
There you have it, folks. One bonafide, boneheaded bungling of a ballot measure campaign in Big Sky Country to add to the multi-million-dollar list of botched campaigns in Missouri, Oklahoma, Nevada and Michigan. Of course, there's a group of people who will, predictably, blame their failures on "activist judges," but that pap is already old and moldy. America's beauty exists in the success of competent citizens conducting their lives and works within the bounds of our social contract, represented by laws deliberately adopted, evenly applied and objectively interpreted according to legislative intent.
Speaking of conducting one's affairs in the light of day, here's a great item from reporter Peter Schrag in the November 6 edition of The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/.... (You have to love those folks at The Nation, who know what the news will be on November 6 a full week or more ahead of time.) "Howard Rich is not a household name, and he is trying hard never to become one. But this New York-based real estate magnate and big-money player may well do more this fall to bring down state and local zoning and environmental regulations and to restrict state spending than any fifty conservative officeholders," Schrag writes.
"You won't find Rich's name on any official political contribution records. The estimated $11 million to $14 million he's kicked in (so far) for state initiative campaigns in Arizona, California, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington comes through a cluster of organizations almost as obscure as he is. Among them: the Fund for Democracy, which he acknowledges is his personal front and which is located in the same lower Manhattan building that he lists as his address; Americans for Limited Government (ALG), which he chairs; Club for Growth State Action, which Rich also chairs and which shares ALG's Chicago address; Montanans in Action, Oklahomans in Action, America At Its Best (or, according to some of its state filings, America at it's Best), Colorado At Its Best (ditto), U.S. Term Limits, which he heads as president, and a handful of others."
Who was it who sang, "Let the sun shine, let the sun shine in, the sun shine in"? Was that the Fifth Dimension?
"Of the roughly $3.7 million raised so far for Proposition 90, much of it to pay signature-gathering firms, only a small fraction comes from within California. The rest, some $3.4 million, has come from the Fund for Democracy, Montanans in Action, Club for Growth State Action, Colorado At Its Best and Americans for Limited Government. In Arizona, Rich's Fund for Democracy and Americans for Limited Government have so far kicked in $1.1 million. In Idaho, the total is $412,000. In Missouri, where the petitions were ruled invalid, the Rich groups spent $2.3 million on the effort. In Washington the total so far is $260,000. In Montana a state judge ruled that petitions for three Rich measures were gathered through `deceit, fraud and procedural noncompliance'."
Schrag wonders if Rich is using his own money or someone else's, and that's a good question. Who knows? "Since the funding for most of Rich's tax-exempt organizations doesn't have to be publicly reported, there's no way to know if it's all Rich's money or if some comes from others. In Nebraska there's a TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights) ballot measure that, like similar measures proposed in Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma and Oregon, would limit increases in state spending to increases in the cost of living and population, a certain path to the erosion of labor-intensive public services, whose cost (e.g., for health and education) always rises faster than inflation. Last year in Colorado, voters, with the support of Republican governor Bill Owens, opted to suspend a key provision of that state's TABOR because it pinched schools, higher education and other services so badly. Nearly all funds for Nebraska's TABOR come from America At Its Best, whose address is the post office box of a law firm in Kalispell, Montana. According to the Nebraska secretary of state's office, all of the funds for America At Its Best come from Americans for Limited Government, Club for Growth State Action, the Fund for Democracy and the National Taxpayers Union."
Schrag goes on to characterize Rich as "an unreconstructed libertarian," and I love that bit. Reminds me of the silvery, seersuckered Colonels who still punctuate their retellings of Southern history with references to the War of Northern Aggression, and their ladies who still blanche at mentions of that same "late unpleasantness." In both cases, it's all about the ideology, you see. The Beauregards are stuck in a culture generations removed from the present, and the Riches/Butchers/Groenes/Tillmans/Carpenters and O'Keefes/Graveses/Cranes/Maxwells/Kleins/Johnsons are stuck in the Libertarian legislative agenda of the late 1970s, able to see in the hazy mirage of faux-intellectual certitude their nirvana: the Clark-Koch ascendancy, the institutionalization of anarchy, permanent oligarchy through "creative destruction." Whew. That Schrag inspires.
Rich, he says, "operates through interlocking `nonprofit' front groups that don't disclose their funding sources, or much else, except in the vaguest terms. It's the perfect cover--and cost-effective, too; Rich understands that buying ballot measures in the two dozen states that allow them is often more successful, and ultimately cheaper, than buying legislation."
"So who is Howie Rich? In SEC filings, he describes himself as `involved in general securities management, venture capital, real estate and business consulting.' But his real passion is that libertarian agenda--term limits, spending caps, popular recall of judges (another campaign he's funding this year in Colorado), school vouchers and property rights. In an e-mail he wrote, `private property is the cornerstone of our freedom.' He was happy to `help local activists across the country to protect essential freedoms.' Those local groups `often face an uphill climb against well funded special interest groups.' Ah, yes."
Then, Schrag drops this blade: "Rich, of course, is not the only black hat here. He's just taking advantage of a porous set of campaign finance regulations that allow contributors to hide behind phony fronts. And he's taking advantage of an initiative process designed a century ago to curb the power of big money in politics but that is now being deftly exploited by precisely those interests. In most large states only big money can buy the signature gatherers, lawyers, pollsters and consultants needed to get anything on the ballot. Ordinary voters can't. The system is made for the Rich."
Poetry, constant reader. Pure poetry.
Reporter Will Sullivan didn't strain to match Schrag's notes here http://www.usnews.com/... but he produced a serviceable report nonetheless, identifying the sponsor of ballot measures from coast to coast as "Howard Rich, a New York real-estate investor who has spent millions of dollars trying to get the measures on the ballot."
But Associated Press reporter David Crary did Schrag one better, posting his Rich profile on the wire for journalists around the world to see, as editors in Boston did here http://www.boston.com/.... "He lives in New York City; his name is on no ballot. Yet real estate investor Howard Rich is a key reason why citizens in distant states will be voting Nov. 7 on bitterly contested initiatives..." Crary writes. "Rich is a libertarian who vigorously champions the cause of limited government. He is the driving force behind a network of groups that has promoted ballot measures in at least 14 states this year."
But that's the end of the kissy-face coverage. In Crary's report, Rich's fortunes turn south in about the third paragraph: "Several of the campaigns were derailed by legal and signature-gathering problems. But states where Rich-backed measures did make the ballot -- often with most of their funding from his network -- include Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Nebraska, Oregon and Washington," he explains. "His adversaries view Rich as a menace, deploying large sums of money to export a potentially harmful ideology to states where he has no personal stake. Others see him as a committed political philanthropist, acting on his convictions in ways that are a legitimate part of U.S. democracy."
"Rich declines to provide financial details of his efforts and his donor list. The liberal Ballot Initiative Strategy Center -- a critic of Rich -- said this week the total spending by his affiliated groups on 2006 ballot measures has exceeded $13.2 million. Agreeing to answer questions only by e-mail, Rich said he had followed all campaign finance rules. In the states where he helped put property-rights measures on the ballot, he wrote, `I do not own any property and will not personally profit in any way'."
Such a disclaimer practically begs a reporter with a pair of functioning neurons to head toward Google.
In as grandiose a display of puffery that a modern man can muster, Rich writes to Crary that anyone opposed to his ideas behaves with shady motives. "The opposition can be characterized as based on greed and self-interest, the public be damned," Rich declares.
L'estat, c'est moi, anyone? (Just for fun, folks, ask Google who crowned Napoleon Bonaparte emperor of France.)
Moving from emperors to elected governors, former Maine Governor Angus King delivered this egg to Rich's "activists of the year" in Maine last week: http://bangordailynews.com/.... Titled straightforwardly "Why Maine should reject TABOR," King spells out the thinking Mainer's view on Rich's pet government-killer. "Because many of the things the state and our towns buy -- highways and health care are the best examples -- are going up faster than the general inflation rate -- which means cuts will have to be made somewhere else each year just to stay under the spending cap. In other words, if you have a 3 percent overall cap and health care costs -- which we don't control -- go up 10 percent, something somewhere else has to give."
"And TABOR would flat-out gut our highway construction program. Paving costs are going up at 10 percent or more a year (in 2005, the rate was 30 percent!) and it doesn't take a calculator to figure that if the budget can only grow at 3 percent, it won't take long to whittle the projects down to just filling potholes. The inevitable result of all this will be cuts in the very areas we should most want to protect to generate growth -- like education at all levels, basic infrastructure, and support for R & D."
"There's nothing wrong with controlling local taxes. My problem is that TABOR is a complete violation of the idea local control. Even if the majority of your town meeting or city council wanted to raise the dog license fee by 50 cents, for example, TABOR would require two-thirds of the town meeting and a referendum to make it happen. Make no mistake, this thing turns over effective control of every town in Maine to the minority. That's not my idea of local control."
And with a Mainer's characteristic aplomb, King skewers the notion that Mainers should "send a message" to their government by supporting TABOR. "It's always dangerous to send a message while aiming at your own foot," he writes.
"The truth is that if we want a more prosperous future in Maine we have do two things at the same time -- lower taxes and invest. TABOR might drive taxes down, but it would make the investments impossible -- and without them, we're stuck. Lower taxes and perennially poor doesn't sound like much of a future to me."
Amen, and amen.
It's here, too: http://www.boston.com/....
Wish we could get that sort of straight talk from every governor. For one example of a governor who may be more sensitive to the solons within his party than to the citizens he serves, let's consider Colorado Governor Bill Owens, whose recent blunder deserves a spot next to Virginia Senator George Allen in this year's caught-on-video hall of shame. The Associated Press spills Owens's beans here http://www.thedenverchannel.com/.... "Opponents of a government spending cap referendum rolled out a new TV ad on Friday featuring footage of Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, who is also appearing in an ad for supporters of the initiative."
Yes, that's right, readers. Mainers are watching Colorado Governor Bill Owens explain why TABOR is a bad, bad, bad idea, and then, without ever changing the channel with their clickers, they get to see Colorado Governor Bill Owens declare that TABOR is a good, good, good idea. If the man weren't leaving office this year anyway, he might be tarred and feathered for this harebrained public relations move and run out of office on a rail.
"In the new anti-TABOR ad, Owens is shown telling Coloradans that the state was in trouble and facing a fiscal crisis because a `glitch' in TABOR had slowed the state's economic recovery from a recession earlier this decade. In the pro-TABOR ad in Maine, Owens tells Maine viewers that TABOR has worked in Colorado and that he has `no doubt' it will work in Maine as well."
Watch: If Dubya is succeeded by a Republican president, Owens has just qualified himself for a seat in the Cabinet, mark my words. Secretary of the Interior, maybe? Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency? Remember, you read it here first.
While we're discussing Maine and its TABOR, you should read reporter Tom Bell's take on the matter here http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/.... "While there appears to be wide agreement that taxes in Maine are too high, many communities and households are divided over whether Question 1 -- also known as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR -- is the right solution, according to interviews with voters and newly released polling data," he writes. "There may be such as thing as `two Maines,' the buzzword often used to differentiate between northern and southern Maine. But in this case,
the division is within people's own communities and often... within their own homes."
So not a single vote has yet been counted for Howie Rich's signature ballot measure in gorgeous, austere Maine, and good families and communities are already rent asunder because of it. One wonders where to send the thank-you note for this uninvited, disruptive intrusion.
Count on the Maine Heritage Policy Center to refuse the credit, now that a "former and future" Mainer living as an exile in Texas, of all places, has filed an ethics complaint that threatens to crack open MPHC's books, perhaps to reveal an unholy host of alliances kept heretofore hidden from view. Reporter Susan Cover reports here http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/... that Carl Lindemann of Cedar Park, Texas, "accuses the Maine Heritage Policy Center of not properly disclosing its role in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights campaign."
Uh-oh. This could upset the apple cart, if it's demonstrated that MHPC "carries out significant, yet undocumented efforts to pass TABOR through unknown numbers of its staff, funded by unknown contributors," as Lindemann writes.
Here's the rub, as Cover explains: "Groups that are not political action committees, but spend more than $1,500 working to support or oppose a measure, are required by state law to file a report called a 1056-B. Formed in 2002, the Maine Heritage Policy Center works to promote conservative public policies, particularly in the areas of the economy, taxation, education and health care. On Nov. 7, voters will be asked to decide whether to support or reject the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, which limits increases in state and local government spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth. It also requires voter approval for tax and fee increases. Waterville Attorney Dan Billings, who is representing the policy center, said Lindemann's interpretation of state law is broad and would require many groups that do not usually report to do so. Billings said the policy center has not spent money on advertisements or mailings to voters. Instead, as authors of the bill, they have appeared at many public forums to help explain it, he said."
Well, that takes care of that. MHPC wrote the measure and has crisscrossed the state to "explain" why it's wonderful and oughta be adopted by voters, but that has nothing to do with working to support the measure, clearly.
What a foolish thing to say. Does the MHPC think that Mainers are that thick-headed?
Reporter Victoria Wallack adds here http://www.timesrecord.com/... that the state ethics commission was to meet today to address the question.
Meanwhile, from a different corner of the nation comes word that Rich is buying an even larger stake in, strangely enough, the government of South Carolina. We've noted in previous posts his deep investment in the campaigns of Mark Sanford for re-election as governor and Karen Floyd, the education neophyte running for state superintendent of schools on an anti-public school, pro-voucher platform. But state comptroller general? And a handful of House candidates?
Reporter Adam Parker tells us here http://v2.charleston.net/... that "Incumbent Republican state Comptroller Richard Eckstrom received 32 percent of his nearly $150,000 third-quarter campaign contributions from out-of-state donors, including school privatization and limited government advocate Howard Rich, records show."
"Eckstrom is one of several statewide and local Republican candidates who has received contributions from Rich and other out-of-state Libertarians attempting to influence South Carolina politics. Lowcountry candidates collecting money from pro-voucher, anti-tax interests are House District 119 candidate Suzanne Piper, House District 120 candidate Joe Flowers and House District 115 candidate Wallace Scarborough, State Ethics Commission records show," he writes.
"Eckstrom, who relied almost exclusively on donors within the state until the third quarter, suddenly collected $11,500 from companies and people directly associated with Rich. That figure represents 24 percent of his total out-of-state contributions, which amounted to $48,000, records show. Other donors included Mark W. Dane, who runs Term Limits America, the political action panel of U.S. Term Limits whose president is Rich; two Libertarians affiliated with Pennsylvania-based Susquehanna International Group, Arthur Dantchik and Jeff Yass (Dantchik is an associate with the Institute for Justice, a Libertarian law firm); and Eric and Donna M. Brooks, who both serve on the Harry Browne for President committee. Browne is a vocal Libertarian who promotes limited government. Eckstrom has also received money from various in-state and out-of-state PACs, including the South Carolina Club for Growth, an affiliate of The Club for Growth, a national organization of which Rich is a board member."
But why buy into a race for the bureaucrat who serves as the state's in-house accountant? Parker says, "The Comptroller General's Office supervises all state expenditures and maintains accounting controls for all state agencies and all funds in the state budget. The office publishes the state's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, which national firms use to determine the state's credit rating. The comptroller sits on the five-member State Budget and Control Board, chaired by the governor."
If I were a betting man, I'd say that last sentence was the key. And I think Parker's article supports my theory: "In May, South Carolinians for Responsible Government, a group associated with Rich, sued the State Ethics Commission after the agency demanded that SCRG disclose its funding sources. The group is the `state partner' of Rich's Americans for Limited Government. When state Attorney General Henry McMaster declined to defend the case for the Ethics Commission, the election watchdog turned to the Budget and Control Board for help, The Associated Press reported in June. A unanimous vote on June 21 would have enabled the Ethics Commission to access a contingency fund to cover legal fees, but Eckstrom refused, saying only emergencies qualified as a good reason for spending such funds. As a result, the lawsuit remains unresolved, and the source of the money behind SCRG remains unknown."
Aha. So investment in a second seat - after the governor's seat - on the Budget Control Board helps ensure that no state funds will be used to investigate whether or not Rich - and who else - is funding his state operation in South Carolina. Eckstrom's opponent draws a bead on the situation, telling Parker that "Eckstrom had effectively provided direct assistance to Rich's organization in South Carolina and prevented the Ethics Commission from enforcing state law."
"Eckstrom's campaign spokesman Rod Shealy said there was nothing odd about the candidate's contributions. `Since Richard Eckstrom is Gov. Sanford's closest ally in Columbia, it makes perfect sense that political supporters of Gov. Sanford are political supporters of Richard Eckstrom,' Shealy said."
Reporter Robert Dalton adds a little bit more here http://www.goupstate.com/... "Republican superintendent of education candidate and Spartanburg businesswoman Karen Floyd picked up nearly $378,000 after winning a five-way primary in June. She has raised nearly $1 million so far in the race. At least $51,000 of that total came from companies and associates of New York developer Howard Rich, a supporter of giving vouchers to parents to send their children to private schools."
"Bradford Management, 405 49 Associates, Ashborough Investors and Spinksville LLC are Rich companies that each gave the maximum $3,500 contribution to Floyd, a Spartanburg businesswoman. Bradford Management and 405 49 Associates share the same address in New York City. The Michigan voucher group All Children Matter gave $1,000. Ten Rich associates each gave $3,500 and another gave $1,000. Rich's companies gave Floyd $24,500 last quarter."
"Floyd could not be reached for comment Monday," Dalton writes. Of course she couldn't; with Rich's funding comes Rich's media relations advice which likely includes the nugget, "Never talk directly to the media."
Wait a second. Here's a guy who rarely gives to candidates for political office - a couple of unknown state legislators wrapped in Libertarian garb and tucked away in America's hinterland are the only ones that come to mind quickly - and suddenly he's Santa Claus to a slate of candidates that includes a governor, a comptroller general, a superintendent of schools AND a handful of anonymous legislators? Something's fishy. Man like this doesn't make that deep an investment unless he's assured of an ownership stake, assuming a successful outcome. Anybody know any more about Piper, Flowers and Scarborough, and why they'd collect such favor from the scion of SoHo?
Reporter Jason Spencer contributes this note http://www.goupstate.com/... and tells us that Rich's state operation has expanded its scope now to include immigration reform. Huh?
"South Carolinians for Responsible Government, a pro-school choice group, has sent out a mailer supporting an area legislative candidate, but the brochure has nothing to do with school choice. Instead, it touts House District 35 hopeful Keith Kelly for having a plan to stop illegal immigration. A spokeswoman for the group said the support does not constitute an endorsement, even though about 10,000 mailers were sent to households in the southern and western part of Spartanburg County. It cost at least $2,000," Spencer writes. "Kelly is a Republican seeking the vacant House seat. His opponent said the group's support should raise some questions."
"They are the school choice group. If they are putting up that kind of money, it makes you wonder," Spencer quotes Tom Davies, the Democrat running against Kelly.
But Spencer also reports that "Kelly said he has not received campaign contributions from South Carolinians for Responsible Government, though the group has sent him checks from individuals. As of July, New York developer Howard Rich, through a myriad of companies and associates, had contributed $53,000 to Republican state superintendent of education candidate Karen Floyd -- and several thousands more to other like-minded candidates across this state. While Rich is helping fund South Carolinians for Responsible Government, Frye said, that group does not give directly to candidates."
"Kelly, however, is one of a handful of state candidates the organization has gotten behind," he tells us. "The target of one mail-out campaign has been Charleston County Council Chairman Leon Stavrinakis, whom the group has accused of giving money to support legalizing all drugs."
Hey, wasn't that on the Libertarian Party's platform in the 1970s? Shouldn't they be supporting Stavrinakis, then?
Blogger Brad Warthen wraps things up in a capsule with a salient headline here http://blogs.thestate.com/... "More Howard Rich: The plot sickens."
"Turns out I forgot a couple of sources on that last post about how Howard Rich is trying to set the agenda for South Carolina with little regard to what we, the mere voters, want. Of course, he needs our complicity in that. But he is apparently operating on the oft-proven principle that enough money can fool enough people to vote the way he wants, even though the result is unlikely to be what they want," Warthen writes. You know, that last part sounds exactly like what Rich himself said of those who oppose his ideas!
"Here's another that goes into the fact that he's doing this in other states across the nation," Warthen continues. "Our Howie is nothing if not ambitious. In fact, so much attention has been focused on Mr. Rich in the past week that I've begun to wonder whether he is distracting us from other sources. He's not the only out-of-state puppetmaster. Is he the main one? I don't know."
Does anyone?
MAINE
http://bangordailynews.com/...
Former Governor Angus King, "Why Maine should reject TABOR"
http://www.boston.com/...
Associated Press, "Former Governor Angus King speaks out against TABOR"
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/...
Associated Press, "Colo. Gov. In Ads For, Against TABOR Referendum:
Owens Accused Of 'Doublespeak' In Maine Debate"
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/...
Reporter Tom Bell, "TABOR splits Maine in two"
http://www.timesrecord.com/...
Reporter Victoria Wallack, "Late campaign complaints spur ethics hearing"
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/...
Reporter Susan Cover, "Ethics panel looks at group's actions"
NATIONAL
http://www.thenation.com/...
Reporter Peter Schrag, "Rich's Stealth Campaign"
http://www.usnews.com/...
Reporter Will Sullivan, "A Host of Questions:Voters will take on eminent domain and a lot more"
http://www.boston.com/...
AP Reporter David Crary, "Wealthy New Yorker backs ballot measures for limited government"
SOUTH CAROLINA
http://blogs.thestate.com/...
Editor Brad Warthen, "More Howard Rich: The plot sickens"
http://v2.charleston.net/...
Reporter Adam Parker, "Candidates take out-of-state money: Libertarians push agenda with cash for state, local campaigns"
http://www.goupstate.com/...
Reporter Robert Dalton, "Donations flowing in for S.C. candidates"
http://www.goupstate.com/...
Reporter Jason Spencer, "School choice group applauds Kelly's immigration plan"