California Voters Have Right to Know Who Financed, Aided , and Abetted Attempt to Rig the Electoral College

The public record then shifts to California, where we learn on September 24, 2007 that this company had on the day after it was formed, on September 11, 2007, made a contribution of $175,000 to Californians for Equal Representation.

It was only on September 28, 2007 that we learned the name of Paul Singer as the source of this money. Then all sorts of interesting connections to the Giuliani for President campaign came into sharper focus.

While we can detail what we the public knew and when we knew it, there still are a lot of questions about what those involved in this scheme knew, and when they knew it. We need the answers, and from accounts the FPPC is aware of this and they are looking into it.

California law requires that the true names and identities of donors be revealed. That clearly wasn't done here and that naturally gives rise to all sorts of questions.

There is a gaping hole in California law, which if used carefully and artfully, can allow for obscuring from public view the true identities of those who contribute. It is called the "one bite" rule, named after the common laws of many states that allowed an owner of a dog to escape legal liability for the first time his or her dog bites someone. After that, they're on the hook.

The one bite rule here allows for the formation of a nonprofit organization under the laws of another state, and for them to collect money that can be used for political purposes. However, the donors to the organization cannot give knowing the campaigns where their money is to be contributed and cannot direct where their money is to be spent. Under Supreme Court decisions, the privacy of the donors can be withheld as allowed under the laws of the state where the organization has been formed. However, after that initial contribution, future ones cannot be made with that anonymity. At that point donors have knowledge of where the money is being contributed and have to be disclosed.

So, when Proposition 90 dealing with eminent domain was on California's ballot last November, we published a detailed article from the Center for Public Integrity that documented the circumventure of California's disclosure laws at that time by a number of out of state contributors and the law in this regard.

There's something at play here that is different, as explained by Mr. Harrison in answer to my questions at yesterday's press conference. Here is what he had to say, with comments by Democratic strategist Chris Lehane:

"In fact, the "one bite" rule would not apply here, and the reason it would not apply is because Mr. Singer knew, or had reason to know--and in this case it's clear from press reports that he actually knew--that the money he gave to Take Initiative America would be used to support a ballot qualification effort in California. Under FPPC regulations, the "one bite" rule doesn't apply in those circumstances. He was the true source of the funds, he knew the purpose of the funds, and Take Initiative America was required to disclose his name as the true source of the funds.

"There are circumstances under the "one-bite" rule where a pre-existing non-profit, for example, that has funds in its coffers, whose donors don't know or have reason to know that those funds are going to be used to support a ballot measure, can one time only make contribution to the ballot measure committee without disclosing the true source of the funds. That's not the case we have here because Mr. Singer by his own admission knew what the funds would be used for, and by transferring $175,000 clearly intended to aid California's effort."

Lehane interjected at this point, "This is much more akin to the situation that we saw that you talked about last week that involved Ward Connerly ...by creating similar series of interlocking front groups and..." and Harrison completed the point, as follows:

"What Chris is referring to is the Racial Privacy initiative, Prop 54, and Connerly there used an organization called American Coalition for Civil Rights, and solicited contributions directly into that non profit and told donors that the funds would be used to help qualify his initiative for the ballot. The FEC saw through that, held that the one bite rule did not apply and fined Mr. Connerly a significant amount of money as a result."

Lehane: "It's worth noting..Mr. Hiltachk was involved with that, right in terms of representing him--or their law firm was involved in terms of representing Ward Connerly, so they were very familiar with what the precedent is and what the law is. And I would also note that at least one of the folks involved with the California effort in explaining or describing why they were resigning specifically referenced concerns about ethical issues. From their own mouth."

Harrison: I agree. Mr. Hiltachk I think conceded that TIA should have disclosed Mr. Singer as the true source of the funds. So I think in this case, California law works just fine. It's just that these folks decided not to comply with it.

Before the end of the conference, Lehane told the press why this is so important:

"We have a real serious concern here about what has really been going on. This is a direct threat to the 2008 election and what could potentially impact who the next President is, so given all the facts that exist, given the pattern of facts that have developed over the last two or three weeks. Given the fact that time after time information has come out which has then crumbled upon itself from the other side, we really do believe that there is an imperative here for the various law enforcement entities and agencies to look into this and look into it as quickly as possible."

I talked to Lehane afterwards and in rapid fire he expounded further on how he sees this and the pattern he sees it fitting in:

"Virtually everyone who was involved in this at every level had a Giuliani connection, and no real connection to the other Republican candidates. Two of the partners at the law firm at the law firm that was responsible for this were Giuliani contributors, including Charles Bell who contributed $1300 days before the initiative was filed and he's the deputy treasurer. You have Charles V. Hurth III, who does not have a history of political giving--I believe he had given a hundred dollars to a state senator prior to this and he gave $2,000 to Giuliani. You have John Wilcox, who was the spokesperson for Hurth, who comes out of the Bill Simon organization. Bill Simon is a Co-Chair in California for the Giuliani campaign as well as a policy advisor. Kevin Eckerly, the spokesperson for the effort is someone who has been quoted in the press being supportive of Giuliani and the Giuliani campaign. And again, when you went through all of these folks, each and every time, virtually every road ultimately led back to Giuliani.

"And, you know, I've said before, I'm originally from the state of Maine. You to bed at night, there's no snow on the ground, you wake up and there's snow on the ground. You can pretty safely conclude that it snowed. In an effort like this if everyone who is involved are connected to one Presidential campaign and they continue to gather signatures and you wake up the next day and find out that the person who in fact was funding it was indeed from the Giuliani campaign, I thin one conclusion that one can safely draw is that it was the Giuliani campaign that was ultimately behind this.

"When you have a series of shadowy Nixonian front groups that are created to directly impact who the next President of the United States is going to be, then that's something that is a cause for concern, not only of voters here in California, but all across the country.

"In my real estimation this is a manifestation of the Republican efforts to suppress voter rights and to play dirty politics with the way votes are counted--whether it was in Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004--efforts in various Senate races in the last cycle where efforts were made to purge voter files--the Justice Department's investigation of various Democrats for political purposes. In the larger constellation of what's occurred over the last six and a half years, it's certainly consistent with that pattern."

So, even if this is the end of the attempt to change the rules of the presidential race for 2008 here, Californians and the rest of the country deserve to have this fully investigated and to have our questions answered--before the election.

We'll check back with later filings to see if other contributions are reported and where they lead and other developments in this story.