By all accounts, I should be in bed right now. I will wake up in just a few hours to get to work by 6:30. But I can't sleep. It's happening again. And I'm not sleeping til I get this out.
It looks like Phil Riesen, Sheryl Allen, and the smear machine are lining up their next target: Representative Greg Hughes. Not content to have caused a media stir and near legislative ethics war earlier this year, Allen and Riesen are considering filing an ethics complaint against Hughes. KSL ran with this story tonight, which had been packaged neatly for John Daley. How else do you explain that KSL has the documents that were never filed with the Ethics Committee, and remain unsigned by the required three house members?
The complaint against Hughes seems to be three parts, though only the most explosive allegation is covered by Daley:
1. Hughes offered Susan Lawrence, a legislator dethroned in the 2006 election by Phil Riesen, $50,000 in campaign cash if she would switch her vote, or sit out, on Vouchers.
2. Hughes pressured people not to support Republican Ryan Wilcox against a sitting legislator, Republican incumbent Glen Donnelson, who lost in this year's Republican primary.
3. That Hughes attempted to pressure Margaret Bird her race against Hughes in this year's Republican Convention. Hughes trounced her handily.
Knowing Rep. Hughes, and having volunteered for a campaign event of his, with more to come soon, I knew something like this was coming. Right after Rep. Walker resigned, rumors swirled all over that Riesen and Allen were so pleased with their work spurring his resignation, that they would take on a new target: Rep. Greg Hughes.
That was months ago. The problem for Rep. Hughes: How do you counter accusations you know are coming, but that you have no clue as to the substance because you've done nothing wrong? Answer: You cannot. So when the lid blew off these allegations Tuesday, Hughes was anxious to get his hands on them. If you watch the KSL story, it seems that's what Hughes was on the Hill for: He came to confront his accusers, while Chris Bleak, Chief of Staff to Speaker Curtis, asked him to wait it out while Curtis checked the complaint's claims.
So now that the accusations are out, and the "bribery" accusation stands out, what do I think really happened?
1. On the bribery allegation, I have some insight. I was at the Republican Party in 2006 during Susan Lawrence's tough race against Phil Riesen. Parents For Choice in Education were very active in trying to find candidates to support, knowing that by having more Republicans in the legislature, vouchers were more likely to pass. So, my guess is that this is how this alleged conversation between Rep Hughes and Susan Lawrence probably played out:
Hughes: Susan, you're in ill health, and the Democrats aren't pulling punches this year. They've got Phil Riesen coming after you with guns blazing, and you need to be ready for the fight of your life. I know you don't like vouchers, but I think if the voucher folks know you are willing to listen to their ideas for a new bill, not even to vote for it, but just to listen, they'd be willing to offer you some support. Would you at least consider talking to these folks?
Lawrence: Thanks, but I think I've got this under control, and I'm just not comfortable with vouchers.
Hughes: Susan, it's going to take $50,000 to beat him. I want to help. Just let me know, and I'll see what I can do.
(Interestingly, Lawrence spent about 20k on her campaign, while Riesen pumped in about $45k.)
Now that's speculation on my part, sheer and utter speculation. But I'm confident that's about how it went down. Is that bribery? No way! It's like any other interest group: If, for example, Equality Utah sends you a questionairre, or wants to interview you to check your stance on issues, they will likely donate to your campaign if they feel you are someone they can work with. That's how this whole system works. No money for votes: It's knowing that, should vouchers or gay marriage or whatever issue the interest group has should come up, you won't ignore their voice mails, emails, requests for meetings, etc.., they will at least be able to talk to you and give their side before you cast a vote.
I have some questions, not the least of which is a question I raised about Richard Ellis and his complaint: Timing. When Ellis filed his ethics complaint, it had been nearly 2.5 months since the alleged bribe attempt, and Ellis had just nearly been eliminated at convention. And just as early/absentee voting is about to begin, Ellis files his ethics complaint. Convenient, eh?
Now, Riesen and Allen have dredged up this complaint. It's based on an event at least 2 and a half years old, and it is utter hearsay. And the letter Susan Lawrence wrote? It's dated September 3rd, 2008*. Thats 27 days ago. What in the world were they waiting for? Answer: This thing has October suprise written all over it. Maximum exposure, maximum damage.
This will not stand the sniff test.
Finally, one last thought. It's been 3 months since the Davis and Weber prosecutors got the Treasurer's Race probe from the Attorney General's Office, and still Mark Walker waits to hear his fate. Does anyone believe that, unless Hughes forces this into ethics committee himself, that he will have any chance at justice, and any hope but to be burned in effigy by the likes of Bob Bernick, Rebecca Walsh, and Holly Mullen? Don't bet on it.
It's 2:20 AM. There's more to this, but it will have to wait until tomorrow night.
*Edited 2:00PM 10-1-08. Originally a typo, I said "2009". Woops.
9 comments:
A draft of the complaint alleges a pattern of bribery, extortion, and flagrant abuse of power. It alleges felonies may have been committed. If filed, it will be hard for Republican power brokers to sweep the complaint under the rug.
Funny how the timing of this coincides with the fact that Rep Hughes is up for re-election. If I was going to make claims that could be so damaging to one person why would I make them right now? Why are they coming out now and not back when the supposed crime had taken place? Is it not a crime to report a crime when it happens?
I guess this whole things smells like politics... What a disappointment!
Couldn't agree more Ryanmoney. This heinous abuse of ethics complaints cannot stand. We ahve to say "No" to this baloney.
No one should assume this is merely a political game. It goes to the core of how we conduct our democracy in Utah.
Ethics reform has consistently been stymied by Republican leadership. The Walker bribery investigation has disappeared, and the most recent attempt at reform, creation of an independent ethics commission, was not even allowed a hearing.
As you might expect, several of the allegations against Hughes could be felonies and, if proved, could send him to prison. They should not be taken lightly. When someone publicly makes a charge such as this, personal considerations, possibly life-changing considerations, have to be well thought out. It takes time.
The complaint specifies six charges against Hughes, involving allegations of attempted bribery, attempted extortion, and abuse of office and misuse of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst to influence result of last year’s voucher referendum.
Furthermore, it says that it is “unclear” whether Hughes was acting for himself or with others. “To the extent others aided or abetted his inappropriate conduct, they, of course, would stand guilty.”
Interesting, Bill. I don't have that letter. It's not on KSLs website... so where did you get it? Are you part of this charade?
I am assuming you hope it's a charade.
You will be able to get a copy of the complaint later today at the Capitol. You can judge for yourself.
Even though KSL broke the story, all other media outlets are now reporting the story. At least one has copies of the cover letter, the complaint, and accompanying exhibits.
Bill, you are puting this out there, because you have copies of this complaint. You knew it was coming, just as Rob Miller did. Your party's fingerprints are all over this.
There is no doubt that the timing of this is politically motivated, which I believe is unfortunate. That being said, I think that we get to the truth of the matter in just hearing everyone cry out, "This is normal! Everyone does it!" Does that mean it's right?
Another issue that puzzles me is why, if Hughes meant what he said about wanting to help Lawrence out with some cash, didn't he make a contribution?!? What contribution is he responsible for in her 2006 campaign? The Accountability blog did a good job of pointing this out.
Also, this complaint, as you outlined, is about more than just Lawrence. Can you give me a play by play for the other five allegations? I don't know what kind of friend you are to Hughes, but you would be a much better friend if you did not try to run play by plays of his conversations for him. You do him no favors.
Post a Comment