Tom Horne Testifies, Channels Bill Clinton
14. "Independent expenditure" means an expenditure by a person or political committee, other than a candidate's campaign committee, that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, that is made without cooperation or consultation with any candidate or committee or agent of the candidate and that is not made in concert with or at the request or suggestion of a candidate, or any committee or agent of the candidate. Independent expenditure includes an expenditure that is subject to the requirements of section 16-917, which requires a copy of campaign literature or advertisement to be sent to a candidate named or otherwise referred to in the literature or advertisement.
An expenditure is not an independent expenditure if any of the following applies:
(a) Any officer, member, employee or agent of the political committee making the expenditure is also an officer, member, employee or agent of the committee of the candidate whose election or whose opponent's defeat is being advocated by the expenditure or an agent of the candidate whose election or whose opponent's defeat is being advocated by the expenditure.
(b) There is any arrangement, coordination or direction with respect to the expenditure between the candidate or the candidate's agent and the person making the expenditure, including any officer, director, employee or agent of that person. For the purposes of this subdivision, serving on a host committee for a fund-raising event does not presumptively demonstrate any arrangement, coordination or direction.
(c) In the same election the person making the expenditure, including any officer, director, employee or agent of that person, is or has been:
(i) Authorized to raise or expend monies on behalf of the candidate or the candidate's authorized committees.
(ii) Receiving any form of compensation or reimbursement from the candidate, the candidate's committees or the candidate's agent.
(d) The expenditure is based on information about the candidate's plans, projects or needs, or those of his campaign committee, provided to the expending person by the candidate or by the candidate's agents or any officer, member or employee of the candidate's campaign committee with a view toward having the expenditure made.
Horne can quibble and split hairs all he wants, but if Horne was not coordinating, then coordination between a candidate and an IE practically is impossible, and the law should be junked as unenforceable.
Which may not be a bad idea, but while we still have some laws in this regard, politicians should give lip service to obeying them. Particularly, aspiring and current Attorneys General.
Kathleen Winn testified prior to Horne, and for most of her time under oath, she acquitted herself with poise. But under cross examination by Fields, she stumbled in explaining calls between herself and Horne, and the e-mail in question.
She, like Horne, forwarded the e-mail chain on without paying attention to it, she claimed. This time to Murray. Which makes absolutely no sense, even though Winn said the ad "was done."
I like Winn. She has a sense of humor, and moxie. But I believe she was being a good soldier in 2010, and is being one now. And perhaps you could say that's admirable in a way, if the general she was serving was someone other than Horne.
There are other issues. Winn's attorney Larry Debus has taken exception, and that's putting it mildly, to the testimony of FBI agent Brian Grehoski, even going so far as to accuse him of perjury.
I'll address this further in another post, but this sideshow seems concocted to help Horne and Winn skate. (Debus did not seem disturbed by holes in Winn's affidavit, which was made under oath.)
Indeed, Debus, when dealing with another issue regarding Grehoski, who was not allowed by the FBI to testify about every aspect of the overall Horne investigation, admitted that he wanted to get the defense's inability to cross-examine as it pleased before the court of appeals.
Indeed, much of what Debus and Horne and Winn's other lawyers were doing was laying the grounds for an anticipated appeal.
Both sides will submit written closing arguments March 13, and rebuttals on the 17th. Eigenheer will then render a judgement, which will go to Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, who will make the final decision on whether to accept or reject it.
Polk has ordered that Horne and Winn pay back $400,000 to BLA contributors, and the hearing this week happened because Horne and Winn are challenging Polk's order.
After Eigenheer sends her recommendation to Polk and Polk makes a final call, the matter could end up in superior court on appeal.
If I had to wager right now, I would bet that Eigenheer finds the defendants in violation, being that the standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence.
Eigenheer's no dummy. She's the ALJ who wrote an opinion rejecting Maricopa County Bill Montgomery's order on this same subject because Monty had violated the process laid out in Arizona law. The superior court upheld Eigenheer's ruling there.
She was paying close attention to all of the testimony this week, taking copious notes.
How she could not find that Horne is guilty as sin is beyond me.
If Horne loses, Horne, Winn, BLA or a combination of the three will face a possible fine of $1.2 million.
Can you imagine? Heck, Horne may have to sell another piece of property.