Fieger found not guilty of campaign finance donations

I don't like Fieger at all, but it's not illegal to be a jackass. Do I agree with the verdict? I don't know since I wasn't there, but I predicted . These cases are very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I first commented on this case when charges were brought. Here

I wish I had the time to courtwatch this case. Fieger did a real smart thing when he was charged. He hired probably the best defense attorney in the entire country in Gerry Spence. Spence earned my respect for the way he handled the Randy Weaver case and railroading at Ruby Ridge. He did the impossible and got an aquittal there. If you are going to go up against Gerry Spence, your case needs to be perfect.

I have two biases here that compete against one another. I have anti-Fieger, but pro-defense leanings.

From the Free Press

Attorney Geoffrey Fieger won a dramatic acquittal Monday on federal charges of violating campaign-finance laws, saving his lucrative career and sending federal prosecutors in Detroit to yet another crushing defeat in a high-profile case.

and this

Helland disputed repeated claims by Fieger’s lawyers that bigwigs at the Justice Department in Washington targeted Fieger, a Democrat who rose to fame defending assisted-suicide physician Jack Kevorkian and ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1998.

Ordinarily, such cases are handled by the Federal Election Commission as a civil matter with fines.

Fieger and Johnson were accused of recruiting 64 employees, family members, friends and vendors to contribute $127,000 to the campaign of Edwards — who, like Fieger, made his fortune as a trial lawyer — and reimbursing the donors with law firm funds.
....
Ordinarily, such cases are handled by the Federal Election Commission as a civil matter with fines.

Fieger is no campaign finance saint and actually admitted to breaking the law with anyonomous donations in a PAC he formed under the name "Herb Charboneau" in a State Supreme Court race. His history there is not good. That would have been much easier to prove than this federal case. This is very, very difficult to prove.

What Fieger did was one of the oldest tricks in the book. He got his friends, workers, and others to donate to a candidate, since he could not go above the max. That's legal. If he reimbursed them specificaly for that donation, it wasn't. In a criminal case, it has to be proven as well that he knew it was not legal, and they need to prove that the reimbursement was specificaly for the transaction to the John Edwards campaign. That is not an easy thing to do beyond a reasonable doubt. The Detroit News has this gem of a quote

West Bloomfield labor attorney Lester Owczarski, a former state administrative law judge who sat through most of the trial, said prosecutors failed to present a case jurors could care about. "It was too much inside baseball ... this thing was just too technical," he said of the Fieger case.

Campaign finance law is extremely technical. It is technical to the point where most people break the law, and not even know it. Go to the Michigan Campaign Finance site and look up a random committee. If it doesn't have the $1000 waiver box checked, more than likely, you'll find something illegal there. The State is reasonable on that stuff and usually sends back "Errors/Omissions" notices, which is roughly equal to a "fix-it" ticket. Fix the problem and do it right, with no penalty outside of more work. Look how common those notices are. Look how common late filings are. Some forget to file. The federal laws are even more technical than the state laws.

I understand most of the campaign finance jargon because I've treasured campaigns for eight years, but unless you are an experienced treasurer or a hands on candidate who studies this, you will be overwhelmed. Even a lot of attorneys are overwhelmed by some of this stuff. If Spence got the jury to understand how technical and easy it is to break the law, that juror is going to be quite sympathetic to a defendant. Paint the prosecutors as bad guys like he did as well, and the juror can visualize that possibility in the back of their mind for a doubt. I don't think there were any campaign treasurers on that jury, as they would be disqualified immediately. The prosecution created a real tough draw for themselves with this because it such a difficult case to prove.

I wasn't there, but I don't think this was an open and shut case. Based on what I know on this, I can see a case made for a reasonable doubt. I'm not convinced Fieger is not guilty, but I'm not convinced that he was either beyond a reasonable doubt. I hate sending someone to prison on a technicality, even if I don't like him.

On a related matter, I'd like to see a revamp of the campaign finance laws. Full immediate disclosure, and unlimited donations by individuals. Everything then is out on the table and these games will not be played.

Fieger charged with campaign finance violations

The only democrat in recent memory who actually lost Ann Arbor is back in the news over his political donations to John "Hair" Edwards.
From the Oakland Press:

Attorney Geoffrey Fieger used "straw donors" to illegally funnel $127,000 to the presidential campaign of John Edwards in 2003 and 2004, a 10-count indictment alleges.

Fieger and his law partner, Vernon Johnson, 45, were named in the grand jury indictment that was unsealed Friday in Detroit.

Fieger, 56, best known for defending assisted-suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, said the charges were politically motivated and "solely intended to intimidate Democratic supporters around the country."

(snip)

The justice department alleges Fieger and Johnson skirted the $2,000 individual contribution limit by soliciting others to make contributions to Edwards and either providing the funds or reimbursing the donors for their contributions.

The donors included attorneys and spouses of Fieger's law firm, non-attorney employees and spouses at the law firm, Fieger's friends and third-party vendors to the law firm, according to the indictment.

The indictment also alleges Fieger obstructed justice by concealing information or providing false information to the grand jury. The government alleges Fieger told federal agents a deceased member of the law firm was responsible for the campaign contributions.

First, let's remember that he IS innocent till proven guilty. We can't arrest someone for being a prick. That isn't a crime.

That said, it isn't the first time he's been involved in campaign finance shenanagans. There was a bunch of anyonomous PAC funnelling that was orchastrated by Fieger in a recent state Supreme Court race. The left hates strict constructionists and originalist judges, and Fieger was a leader in the attempt to take them out election time, but did not want his name attached to it for obvious reasons.

On the state level, what he was charged with is called earmarking. It is a VERY COMMON, but ILLEGAL practice at both the state and federal level. In Gubenatorial Races, the donation limit is $3400. Let's say that John Doe runs for governor. I can give Doe $3400 if I had that kind of money. Anything more would be illegal. What often happens is that a donor will give money to an individual "earmarking" it to be given to a campaign. That's illegal and what Fieger is charged with. If I wanted to give $34,000 to Doe, I couldn't give $3400, and give $3400 to nine of my collegues with the stipulation that it goes to Doe's campaign. That's illegal, although as I said before - an extremely common practice (and tough to prove).

Is he guilty here? I'll let the jury decide that. I will say one thing. If he's guilty, he's by far not the only one. That I can say for a fact. A lot of people should be scared right now. Luckily for me, I don't earmark, and I stayed the hell away from that in campaigns I treasured.