DOCSLIB.ORG

The Independent Counsel Process: Is It Broken and How Should It Be Fixed?, 54 Wash

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Independent Counsel Process: Is It Broken and How Should It Be Fixed?, 54 Wash Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 54 | Issue 4 Article 6 Fall 9-1-1997 The ndepI endent Counsel Process: Is It Broken and How Should It Be Fixed? Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation The Independent Counsel Process: Is It Broken and How Should It Be Fixed?, 54 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1515 (1997), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol54/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Independent Counsel Process: Is It Broken and How Should It Be Fixed? A Five-Panel Program Presented at the Opening Session of the SIXTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT The Homestead Hot Springs, Virginia Friday, June 27, 1997 The Editors ofthe Washington and Lee Law Review arepleased to publish thispanel discussion held at the Fourth Circuit'sSixty-Seventh JudicialConference. The Washington and Lee University School of Law has always enjoyed a close relationshipwith the FourthCircuit. Many notable W&L alumnihave served in the Fourth Circuit,including Judge Hoffman, to whom we dedicate this issue, and Justice Powell, who sat in seniorstatus with the Fourth Circuitformany years afterhis retirementfrom the Supreme Court. For twenty-five years, the Law Review published an annual review ofcases from the Circuitand will soon publish biographicalprofiles of the Fourth Circuitjudges from the lastfifty years. Last fall, a Fourth Circuitpanel held oral argu- ments in the Moot Court Room at the Washington and Lee University Law School- among thefew times the Circuithas held oral arguments at a law school. The EditorialBoardis honoredthat the FourthCircuit chose the Washington and Lee Law Review to publish its in-depth dis- cussion of the Independent Counsel statute. The JudicialConference presented an interestinginvestigation into the IndependentCounsel statute, itsfaultsandfaiings, andsuggestions for changes. The discussion includedan impressivepanel of learned judges, attorneys, and specialprosecutors who have been intimately involved in this process. The Editors would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of the HonorableJ Harvie Wilkinson III, Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit,and the Honorable T.S. Ellis, III,Judge, EasternDistrict of Virginia. To preserve the open nature of the pro- ceedings, the Law Review presents the text in its rawformat, although the participantsdid have an opportunity to review and make minor changes to their language. The Editors andparticipantshave indicated source references where appropriate. 1515 1516 54 WASH. & LEE L. REV 1515 (1997) Table of Contents Foreword Honorable J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ................. 1519 Honorable T.S. Ellis, III, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia ........................... 1520 ProgramIntroductory Remarks .............................. 1525 Panel One - Requests for Independent Counsel ................. 1526 Moderator: Honorable William L. Osteen, Sr., Judge, United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina Speakers: Honorable William P. Barr, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, GTE Corporation; Attorney General of the United States (1991-1993) Honorable Jamie S. Gorelick, Vice Chair, Fannie Mae Corporation; Deputy Attorney General of the United States (1994-1997) Panel Two -Appointment of Independent Counsel ............... 1536 Moderator: Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie, Judge, United States District Court, District of South Carolina Speakers: Honorable David B. Sentelle, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; Presiding Judge, Special Panel for Appointments of Independent Counsel Honorable John D. Butzner, Jr., Senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Member, Special Panel for Appointments of Independent Counsel Panel Three - ProsecutorialInvestigations and Decisions ........ 1545 Moderator: Honorable T.S. Ellis, III, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia Speakers: Robert B. Fiske, Jr., Esq., Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York, New York; Former Independent Counsel, Whitewater Investigation FOURTHCIRCUIT JUDICIL CONFERENCEPROCEEDINGS 15171 Jacob A. Stein, Esq., Stein, Mitchell & Mezines, Washington, D.C.; Former Independent Counsel Larry D. Thompson, Esq., King & Spalding, Atlanta, Georgia; Former Independent Counsel for the Department of Housing and Urban Development Investigation Honorable Lawrence E. Walsh, Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Former Independent Counsel for the Iran- Contra Investigation PanelFour - CongressionalInvestigations .................... 1565 Moderator: Honorable Charles F. Haden II, Chief Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of West Virginia Speakers: Richard J. Leon, Esq., Baker & Hostetler, Washington, D.C.; Former Special Counsel, United States House of Representatives Whitewater Investigation John W. Nields, Jr., Esq., Howrey & Simon, Washington, D.C.; Former Independent Counsel for the Iran-Contra Investigation PanelFive - The Future of the Independent Counsel Process ...... 1578 Moderator: Honorable Andre M. Davis, Judge, United States District Court, District of Maryland Speakers: Professor Archibald Cox, Harvard University Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Former Special Prosecutor, Watergate Investigation Terry H. Eastland, Ethics & Public Policy Center, Washington, D.C.; Author of Ethics, Politics, and The Independent Counsel Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Theodore B. Olson, Esq., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, D.C.; Former Counsel to President Reagan, Iran-Contra Investigation LVEEHFI WVI (l9 FOURTHCIRCUIT JUDICLIL CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS 1519 Foreword Honorable J. Harvie Wilkinson III The Judicial Conference ofthe Fourth Circuit Court ofAppeals has a long tradition. Chief Judge John J. Parker convened the first circuit-wide judicial conference in Asheville, North Carolina, in 1931. The conference has flourished throughout the years. The sixty-seventh annual gathering of bench and bar took place at the Homestead in Hot Springs, Virginia, on June 26-28, 1997. Like all of its predecessors, the conference was an agreeable and convivial occasion. The circuit conference, however, has always had a more serious aim than mere sociability. The statutory purpose of such gatherings is to review "the business of the courts" and to consider improvements in "the administration ofjustice."' For most of the year, judges and lawyers are properly attentive to their individual cases and clients. The conference is one occasion when we can step back and survey the broader landscape. The independent counsel statute2 is an ideal topic for ajudicial conference. The statute is an intersection betweenthe strongest imperatives of the rule of law and the most basic prerogatives of democracy. How we approach this statute will have a lot to say about what kind of republic we will have. The statute asks the most fundamental questions involving public responsibility. It chal- lenges us to consider to what and to whom our highest officials are ultimately accountable. In recognition of that fact, we have drawn our panelists for this program from a wide variety of backgrounds. Represented on the panels are Justice Department officials, judges of the Special Panel for the Appointment of Independent Counsel, former special prosecutors, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, congressional investigators, and other experts in the independent counsel process. The panelists on our program represent different and divergent points ofview. What they have in common, however, is an inti- mate acquaintance with how the independent counsel process works. The ensuing dialogue follows that process from start to finish. It begins with an examination of requests for an independent counsel from the Department ofJustice. It then discusses the appointment of independent counsel, prosecu- torial investigations and decisions, and congressional investigations that parallel the prosecutors' work. The program then concludes with a discussion ofwhether the statute should be retained or how it may be improved in the future. Inasmuch as the statute involves the potential prosecution of the top public officials of ourcountry, any discussion ofits operation is bound to be politically charged. That is all the more reason for a program such as this one. We have 1. 28 U.S.C. § 333 (1994). 2. 28 U.S.C. §§ 591-599 (1994). 1520 54 WASH. & LEE L. REV 1515 (1997) asked the panelists to separate their judgments from the political temptations of the moment and to ask what is ultimately the only question worth asking: whether and how the institution of independent counsels serves the public interest and the ultimate well-being of this republic. Honorable T.S. Ellis, III Few topics in recent memory have been as widely discussed in the media as the activities ofthe independent counsel and the operation of the independent counsel statute. Yet it is also true that most members of the public, including many lawyers, do not know the statute's
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Louisiana Political Corruption-2018
    Defending Political Corruption and Abuse of Power Prosecutions in Louisiana Typical Types of Federal Prosecutions of Public Officials • 18 U.S.C. § 201- Public Bribery • 18 U.S.C. § 666- Theft or Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving FeDeral FunDs • 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343- Mail and Wire fraud (honest services frauD) • 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242- Deprivation of Rights anD Conspiracy Against Rights 18 U.S.C. 201- Public Bribery • Offering or promising something of value to a “public official,” or • A “public official” demanding, seeking, receiving, or accepting something of value • Corruptly with the intent to influence or be influenced in the performance of an “official act” (ie. bribery) • Or as a reward for an official act already done, or which is promised to be done in the future (ie. a ”gratuity”) 18 U.S.C. 201 • Who is a “public official”? • Per § 201(a)(1), “The term public official means Member of Congress, Delegate, or ResiDent Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualifieD, or an officer or employee of or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency, or branch of Government thereof, incluDing the District of Columbia, in any official function, unDer or by authority of any such Department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror.” • IncluDes any feDeral employee or anyone who holds ”a position of public trust with official federal responsibilities” and who possesses “some degree of official responsibility for carrying out a federal program or policy.” Dixson v. UniteD States, 465 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Edwin Meese Papers, 1941-1991
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt358035d1 Online items available Inventory of the Edwin Meese papers, 1941-1991 Finding aid prepared by Aparna Mukherjee, revised by Hoover Institution Library and Archives Staff and Beth Goder Hoover Institution Library and Archives © 1991, 2013 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6003 [email protected] URL: http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives Inventory of the Edwin Meese 91005 1 papers, 1941-1991 Title: Edwin Meese papers Date (inclusive): 1941-1991 Collection Number: 91005 Contributing Institution: Hoover Institution Library and Archives Language of Material: English Physical Description: 772 manuscript boxes, 2 oversize boxes, 1 envelope, 5 sound cassettes, 2 motion picture film reels(325.0 Linear Feet) Abstract: Speeches, correspondence, memoranda, reports, schedules, press releases, legal documents, printed matter, photographs, and sound recordings related to California politics and administration of the California state government during the governorship of Ronald Reagan; and to American domestic policy, Republican Party politics, and federal administration of justice during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Digital copies of select records also available at https://digitalcollections.hoover.org. Creator: Meese, Edwin Hoover Institution Library & Archives Access The collection is open for research; materials must be requested at least two business days in advance of intended use. Publication Rights For copyright status, please contact the Hoover Institution Library & Archives. Acquisition Information Materials were acquired by the Hoover Institution Library & Archives in 1991, with increments received in subsequent years. Preferred Citation [Identification of item], Edwin Meese papers, [Box no., Folder no. or title], Hoover Institution Library & Archives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Calculus of Public Corruption Cases: Hidden Decisions in Investigations and Prosecutions
    Article The Calculus of Public Corruption Cases: Journal of Criminal Justice and Law: Official Journal of the Law and Public Policy Section Hidden Decisions in Investigations and of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 21‐36 (2019) Prosecutions ©University of Houston‐Downtown Kristine Artello and Jay S. Albanese I Abstract Acts of public corruption can undermine the rule of law and the legitimacy of the state. Holding public officials to the rule of law through the threat of prosecution is a crucial mechanism to give the law meaning in practice. In the United States, nearly all prosecutions for public corruption occur at the federal level, although many defendants in these cases are officials at the state and local levels of government. When corruption cases are brought, they usually result in a conviction via a guilty plea. However, making these cases is difficult, with only about a third of investigations resulting in actual criminal prosecutions, an outcome much different from those seen in white collar or organized crime cases. In this study, we seek to elicit the decision‐making processes that occur in corruption investigation and prosecution. On the basis of 40 interviews with former investigators and former prosecutors, it has been found that experience, access, resources, and institutional barriers are all challenges to successful investigations. At the prosecution stage, prosecutors face a somewhat different set of barriers, including implied legitimacy concerns, thresholds, and potential long‐term repercussions. Implications of these findings for policy and resources are discussed. Keywords Corruption, investigation, prosecution, decision making ___________________________________________________________________________ I L.
    [Show full text]
  • Guarding the Public Interest
    NYSBA WINTER 2011 | Vol. 13 | No. 2 Government, Law and Policy Journal A Publication of the New York State Bar Association Committee on Attorneys in Public Service, produced in cooperation with the Government Law Center at Albany Law School TThehe OOversightversight FFunction:unction: GGuardinguarding tthehe PPublicublic IInterestnterest • IInsurancensurance RRegulationegulation • IInspectorsnspectors GGeneraleneral iinn NNewew YYorkork MMunicipalitiesunicipalities • NNewew YYorkork CCityity DDepartmentepartment ooff IInvestigationnvestigation • EEthicsthics LLawsaws iinn NNewew YYorkork SStatetate • AAnn IInternationalnternational TTraderade ““Watchdog”Watchdog” • PPrivaterivate IIncentivesncentives • FFalsealse CClaimslaims AActscts • GGovernmentovernment IIntegrityntegrity • CCorruptionorruption PPreventionrevention aandnd GGovernmentovernment EEfficiencyfficiency NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION The Committee on Attorneys in Public Service 2012 Annual Meeting Educational Programs and Awards for Excellence in Public Service Tuesday, January 24, 2012 Hilton New York Sutton Parlor North, 2nd fl oor, 1335 Avenue of the Americas (53rd-54th Streets) New York, NY Supreme Court Update (9:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.) This session will look back at the 2010-2011 term, the Justices, highlight the biggest decisions of the term and look ahead to the upcoming 2011-2012 term. Speakers: William D. Araiza, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Jason Mazzone, Gerald Baylin Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School New York Ethics Reform – Version 2.0 (2:00 p.m. –
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Square Park: Struggles and Debates Over Urban Public Space
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 6-2017 Washington Square Park: Struggles and Debates over Urban Public Space Anna Rascovar The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2019 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] WASHINGTON SQUARE PARK: STRUGGLES AND DEBATES OVER URBAN PUBLIC SPACE by ANNA RASCOVAR A master’s thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, The City University of New York 2017 © 2017 ANNA RASCOVAR All Rights Reserved ii Washington Square Park: Struggles and Debates over Urban Public Space by Anna Rascovar This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty Liberal Studies in satisfaction of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts. Date David Humphries Thesis Advisor Date Elizabeth Macaulay-Lewis Executive Officer THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT Washington Square Park: Struggles and Debates over Urban Public Space by Anna Rascovar Advisor: David Humphries Public space is often perceived as a space that is open to everyone and is meant for gatherings and interaction; however, there is often a great competition over the use and control of public places in contemporary cities. This master’s thesis uses as an example Washington Square Park, which has become a center of contention due to the interplay of public and private interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States  ROBERT F
    No. 15-474 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent. _____________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LAW PROFESSORS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER William W. Taylor, III ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M Street, N.W. Ste. 1000 Washington, DC 20036-5802 T: (202) 778-1800 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................. 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT......................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................ 3 I. The Fourth Circuit’s Holding Conflicts with This Court’s Jurisprudence in Skilling and Citizens United......................... 3 II. The Fourth Circuit’s Opinion Is Squarely At Odds with Other Circuits’ Precedent. ...................................................... 7 III. The Fourth Circuit’s Opinion Will Significantly Impact Prosecutions and Representative Democracy Across the Country. ....................................................... 13 CONCLUSION....................................................... 15 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) ............................................ 4, 5 McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) .............................................. 4, 5 McCormick v. United
    [Show full text]
  • Public Integrity Section (PIN) REPORT to CONGRESS on THE
    REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION FOR 1995 Public Integrity Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice Submitted Pursuant to Section 603 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION FOR 1995 qJ J't ' Public Integrity Section CriminI Division U.S. Department of Justice Submitted Pursuant to Section 529 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 WFRODUCTION This Report to the Congress, prepared as required by Section 529 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, details the activities and operations of the Public Integrity Section and provides statistics concerning the nationwide effort against corruption for calendar year 1995. The Public Integrity Section was established in 1976. The Section was given the responsibility for overseeing the federal effort to combat corruption through the prosecution of elected and appointed public officials at all levels of government. The Section is also responsible for supervising the handling of investigations and prosecutions of election crimes. Its attorneys prosecute selected cases against federal, state, and local officials, and are available as a source of advice and expertise to prosecutors and investigators. The Public Integrity Section also supervises the administration of the Independent Counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act. In addition, the Section serves as the Justice Department's center for the handling of issues that may arise from time to time regarding public corruption investigations and prosecutions. The Section maintains a staff of approximately 25 to 30 attorneys including experts in election law, the laws prohibiting conflicts of interest and bribery, the Independent Counsel provisions, and the statutes providing federal jurisdiction over corruption at the state and local levels.
    [Show full text]
  • An Original Model of the Independent Counsel Statute
    Michigan Law Review Volume 97 Issue 3 1998 An Original Model of the Independent Counsel Statute Ken Gormley Duquesne University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Legal History Commons, Legislation Commons, President/ Executive Department Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Ken Gormley, An Original Model of the Independent Counsel Statute, 97 MICH. L. REV. 601 (1998). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol97/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN ORIGINAL MODEL OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE Ken Gormley * TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 602 I. HISTORY OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . • • • • • • 608 A. An Urgent Push fo r Legislation . .. .. .. .. 609 B. Th e Constitutional Quandaries . .. .. .. .. 613 1. Th e App ointments Clause . .. .. .. .. 613 2. Th e Removal Controversy .. ................ 614 3. Th e Separation of Powers Bugaboo . .. 615 C. A New Start: Permanent Sp ecial Prosecutors and Other Prop osals .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 617 D. Legislation Is Born: S. 555 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 624 E. Th e Lessons of Legislative History . .. .. .. 626 II. THE FIRST TWENTY YEARS: ESTABLISHING THE LAW'S CONSTITUTIONALITY • . • • • • . • • • . • • • • . • • • • . • • • 633 III. REFORMING THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL LAW • • . • 639 A. Refo rm the Method and Frequency of App ointing In dependent <;ounsels ..... :........ 641 1. Amend the Triggering Device .
    [Show full text]
  • Public Integrity Section (PIN) REPORT TO
    REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION FOR 1981 Public Integrity Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice Submitted Pursuant to Section 603 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 I I, I I I. I I REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE ACTIVITIES D OPERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION I FOR 1981 I I I I I Public Integrity Section Submitted Pursuant Criminal Division to Section 529 of the ce E1h1cs in Government April, 1982 Act of 1978 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. Operations of the Public Integrity Section 1. A. Operational Responsibilities 1 B. Special Prosecutor Matters 3 C. Technical Assistance 3 D. 198]. Special Initiatives 5 PART II. Prosecutions and Indictments in 1981 6 A. Corruption and Official Misconduct 7 at the Federal Level B. Corruption at the State and Local Levels 8 C. Election Crimes 9 PART III. Federal Prosecutions of Corrupt Public 11 Officials 1970 - 1981 A. Significant Public Corruption 12 Cases Nationwide B. Statistical Tables 18 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS Section 529 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires the Attorney General to "report to Congress on the activities and operations" of the Public Integrity Section. This Report, the fourth submitted pursuant to the Act, covers calendar year 1981. Part I of this Report describes the present operations and functions of the Public Integrity Section, highlighting the major activities of 1981, and Part II details the cases handled by the Section during 1981. Part III presents data on the national effort to combat public corruption during 1981, based on the Section's annual survey of United States Attorneys.
    [Show full text]
  • Enforcement of Campaign Finance Rules: a System in Search of Reform
    The Enforcement of Campaign Finance Rules: A System in Search of Reform Kenneth A. Grosst In the wake of the savings and loan crisis, the so-called "Keating Five" scandal, and increasing disillusionment with the electoral system, campaign finance reform is once again an issue of major national concern. As has often occurred in the past,' Congress appears poised to enact major campaign reform legislation as a response to these latest political scandals. Indeed, the United States Senate passed a campaign finance reform bill in May of this year,2 and the House of Representatives is currently considering campaign finance reform legislation.' While there have been many proposals to make substantive changes to the campaign finance laws, historically, these proposals have overlooked the need to improve procedures for enforcement of these laws. If this round of reforms is to be effective, particular attention must be devoted to the enforcement provisions in light of the critical inadequacies of the current enforcement scheme. The current enforcement mechanism is flawed in three fundamental ways. First, individuals and campaigns accused of Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)4 violations do not enjoy many of the due process protections available to the accused in other administrative contexts. Second, the statutory enforce- ment scheme under the FECA constrains the ability of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to adequately deter FECA violations-a daunting task in the face of entities that aggressively seek creative ways to evade the laws. Finally, despite the existence of a number of criminal statutes prohibiting elected officials from accepting campaign contributions for improper purposes, the criminal law has been of limited value in regulating campaign finance t Kenneth A.
    [Show full text]
  • GOES BACK... SCHOOL Johnson Remain in Berlin
    . N V Ploy FOUBTBEN PRTOAT, AUGUST IS, IW l iKani:t;i?0t>r lEofttitig l^eraUt AveraR:e Daily Net Press Run The Weather For the Ended FoMOMt ef U. 8. Weather • June 8, 1961 L. Thomas Burdick, 14 Xdgerton loney (V ): medley winner*. Day- St, is th Jerome, Idaho, attending Salter’s Winner son Wnibel, Art Petrone, Bill FOR RENT Fair, nets tsr t iswif r * *1 About Town the funeral of his mother, Mrs. Avery (S). 13,3.30 toalght. Lew M t* #4. Fair, There will be a ttl-pool meet be­ S and 16 mm. Movie Projectors Myrtle D. Burdick, who died last In Swim Event -HMund or silent, also SO mm. Member of the Audit Award* and c«rtlflcate* will b« night tween Globe, Salters and Ver- planck next Thursday evening at slid* projeetdrs. Bureea of Olrenlstloa preaentcd to children, wh^ attend The second swim meet between Manchester— A City of Village Charm ih* Salvation Army** Vacation VFVP Auxlllaiy and members contestants from Verplsnck and 6 at Salter's Pool. In addition to WELDON DRUG CO. Bible School, at closing exercises planning to go on the Mystery Ride the events mentioned above a free­ 901 Main 8 t TeL BO S-OStl Salter's Pools was h ^ last eve­ style will be added for nine and tonight at 7 at the church. A dls- Tuesday should make reservations ning with Salter's team winning by (ClaaeUIed Advertlalng on Page I) flay of pupils’ wortt will be shown, with Mrs. John Vince, 227 McKee ten year olds.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Report on Voter Fraud and Testified As a Fact Witness in ACORN, Et Al
    EXPERT REPORT North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Case No.: 1:13-cv-00658-TDS-JEP (D. N.C.) Judge Thomas D. Schroeder Magistrate Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake February 12, 2015 LORRAINE C. MINNITE, Ph.D. EXPERT REPORT OF LORRAINE C. MINNITE, PH.D TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Summary of Opinions ......................................................................................................... 1 II. Background & Qualifications ............................................................................................. 1 III. Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 3 A. Brief History of Voting Restrictions ....................................................................... 3 B. Defining “Voter Fraud” .......................................................................................... 6 C. Analysis of Voter Fraud Nationally ........................................................................ 8 D. Examination of Voter Fraud in North Carolina Prior to the Enactment of HB 589/S.L. 2013-381 ................................................................................................ 12 E. The Legislative History to H.B. 589/S.L. 2013-381 ............................................. 17 F. Public Perception of Voter Fraud ......................................................................... 18 G. Analysis of Allegations of Voter Fraud in North
    [Show full text]