You are here
Conflicts, Suits, and Questions Galore in Georgia
Tuesday, June 29th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
You be the judge. According to an
article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a board member of a
Georgia-based insurance company set up ten PACs in Alabama that
together gave $120,000 — ten times the legal limit — to a candidate for
Georgia insurance commissioner. A complaint was filed with the state
ethics commission (not only is there a contribution size issue, but the
contributions came from a company regulated by the candidate's office).
The CEO of the insurance company is a friend of the candidate, and was
appointed by the candidate to head a commission.
When the state ethics commission subpoenaed records from the insurance company, the company sued to stop the investigation.
When the state ethics commission scheduled a hearing on this and other matters relating to the candidate, the company sued to stop the hearing.
The company has accused the state ethics commission of acting for political purposes, seeking to set its hearing soon before the July 20 primary. And yet the company has done all it can to delay the investigation, and then the hearing until after the primary.
What concern is it of an insurance company whether an EC hearing affects an election? Is the insurance company acting in the interest of its CEO, or of its shareholders?
The court ordered that the hearing on the insurance company issue not go forward, but the EC said it would discuss other matters relating to the investigation. You would think the insurance company would have no interest in these other matters and how they were handled, but its attorney was up in arms about the hearing. “The members of the commission and the executive secretary are all attorneys; they are officers of the court. They cannot willfully disregard a court order and expect such a blatant act to be ignored.” Who is the attorney representing, the insurance company, the candidate, or the insurance company CEO?
And where are the PACs in all of this? If the insurance company is to contend that they were not a way of illegally making contributions, why aren't the PACs filing all the suits? If the company is not contending this, why wasn't the matter settled back in 2009?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
When the state ethics commission subpoenaed records from the insurance company, the company sued to stop the investigation.
When the state ethics commission scheduled a hearing on this and other matters relating to the candidate, the company sued to stop the hearing.
The company has accused the state ethics commission of acting for political purposes, seeking to set its hearing soon before the July 20 primary. And yet the company has done all it can to delay the investigation, and then the hearing until after the primary.
What concern is it of an insurance company whether an EC hearing affects an election? Is the insurance company acting in the interest of its CEO, or of its shareholders?
The court ordered that the hearing on the insurance company issue not go forward, but the EC said it would discuss other matters relating to the investigation. You would think the insurance company would have no interest in these other matters and how they were handled, but its attorney was up in arms about the hearing. “The members of the commission and the executive secretary are all attorneys; they are officers of the court. They cannot willfully disregard a court order and expect such a blatant act to be ignored.” Who is the attorney representing, the insurance company, the candidate, or the insurance company CEO?
And where are the PACs in all of this? If the insurance company is to contend that they were not a way of illegally making contributions, why aren't the PACs filing all the suits? If the company is not contending this, why wasn't the matter settled back in 2009?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
