The 616 PAC Gets Away with It

Back in the Fall of 2012 I filed a campaign finance complaint against the 616 PAC for what looked to me violations of Michigan campaign finance law.

Let me recap the situation. I ran for the Grand Rapids Township Board in 2012 and was soundly defeated.  The four incumbent trustees  (Rusty Merchant, Lee Van Popering, Robert Roth, and David Van Dyke ) did no campaigning  that I saw (excepting Lee Van Popering, who exhumed a few old campaign signs and placed some of them illegally on Township property).  The 616 PAC spent around $6,500 on three mailings supporting the four incumbents. After the election was over, three of the four trustees made contributions to the 616 PAC that nicely covered the cost of the mailings.  The question was whether the 616 PAC had acted in complete independence of the candidates, and whether their contributions to the 616 PAC after the election were simply generous contributions of public-spirited citizens, or whether they were made to cover expenses that they knew the 616 PAC had incurred on their behalf.

The complaint dragged on interminably, finally finding a resolution this week after I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Bureau of Elections in Lansing, which provided lots of interesting documents.  The Bureau’s letter:

To my mind, the Bureau rather gullibly accepted the specious arguments of the 616 PAC’s capable attorney, Eric Doster, who specializes in campaign finance (and whose bill, according to documents filed on the state website, was $1500). An example of his effective work is this e-mail:

Then there is this interesting affidavit by Bill Jackson, head of the 616 PAC: 

In reading Mr. Jackson’s statement and  Mr. Doster’s e-mail (and other documents in the file), I am reminded of Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen, who was able to believe six impossible things before breakfast. Let us review what it takes to believe their argument:

1. Although Bill Jackson, head of the 616 PAC, worked for Trustee Rusty Merchant’s law firm, they never discussed the fact that the 616 PAC was going to be working to re-elect the incumbents.  Note the language in Mr. Jackson’s affidavit: “The Mailings were disseminated without the direction or control of any of the candidates endorsed in the Mailings.” It does not say "without knowledge.”  One gets the feeling of “a wink and a nod,” and language suggested by a good lawyer.
2. The incumbents collectively agreed it was unnecessary to do any significant campaigning themselves, even though two other candidates were running. The incumbents made sworn statements that they “did not coordinate with the PAC in any mailings or campaign activity.” They had no expectation that anyone else would take up their cause and were pleasantly surprised when mailings promoting their candidacies appeared unexpectedly in their mailboxes.
3. The incumbents, after the election, contributed out of the goodness of their hearts what the 616 PAC had spent on their behalf, without any prior knowledge of the 616 PAC's activities, or any obligation to do so.  As Mr. Doster observes, there might have been others who were willing to donate to the 616 PAC, so the PAC may just have sent the mailings in hopes that contributions would come in from other sources. If anyone believes this, I have some shares in a diamond mine in Bolivia I will sell to you cheaply.

In sum, this has been a most interesting experience, although I am left with less confidence in the integrity of a variety of people than I had before it began.  

What Can One Say about the 616 PAC?

It’s hard to know what to say about the 616 PAC. Bill Jackson who runs it seems remarkably lackadaisical about following the law.  My complaint, evidenced in earlier posts, is still outstanding.  I’ve talked with the Michigan Department of Elections staff, who inform me that he simply doesn’t respond to their requests.

Meanwhile, he also doesn’t believe in filing the necessary reports.  Recently he received a second notice with a $250 penalty for failing to file timely reports.

The whole electronic paper trail is available on the state Department of Elections site.

I shall report on any future developments.

The Mills of Government Grind Slowly for the 616 PAC

Back in 2012 I made an interesting but entirely unsuccessful effort to win a seat on the Grand Rapids Township Board.  The incumbent trustees found it unnecessary to do much, if any campaigning, depending on the work of Bill Jackson’s 616 PAC.

At the time it seemed to me that the 616 PAC had played rather flexibly with the Michigan campaign finance laws, providing more support for the incumbent trustees than was legally allowed.  I filed a complaint with the Bureau of Elections in Lansing.

They have moved with less than haste to resolve my concern. Initially they assessed a $500 penalty for filing an inaccurate financial report.

About ten months after my initial complaint the Bureau of Elections made a preliminary conclusion that the 616 PAC had indeed violated the law, sending this letter dated September 20, 2013:

In the eleven months since, nothing further has happened.  I check with the Bureau of Elections occasionally, and am told that “the conciliation process is still ongoing” with regards to my complaint.

I’ll post the eventual outcome of my complaint, whatever it may be.

616 PAC Fined $500 for Campaign Violation

The 616 Political Action Committee, which funded the campaigns of the incumbent trustees in the August 2012 Grand Rapids Township primary has been fined $500 for faulty campaign reporting.  The PAC is headed by Bill Jackson, a lobbyist who works for Trustee Rusty Merchant’s law firm.

All of the various documents are available on the Secretary of State web site:

       http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/com_det.cgi?com_id=515521

I also think that the committee overspent the legally permitted amount in funding the campaign. Funneling campaign contributions through a PAC allowed the incumbents to make larger contributions to the PAC than they would have been able to spend on their individual campaigns.  Under the law, a candidate who spends less than $1,000 is exempt from most reporting requirements.  Several of the incumbents donated more than that amount to the 616 PAC. Clicking on the document below will bring up a full-sized copy.

The 616 PAC Files Dubious Statements

I got rather soundly trounced in August primary for Grand Rapids Township trustee.  The four incumbents were supported by the 616 PAC, a political action committee that is rather loose in meeting the requirements of the Michigan Campaign Finance Law.  PACs are required to file financial reports.  The material for the 616 PAC is available here.

Although the PAC spent significant sums to elect the seven incumbents, the original required July and October financial statements showed no contributions and no expenditures, a rather surprising situation.

I asked the 616 PAC treasurer Bill Jackson for an explanation.  He never replied, but some weeks later amended statements were filed showing both significant contributions and expenses.  These are available on the Secretary of State website linked to above.  

The reports show that  all but one of the existing trustees contributed to fund their re-election, a quite reasonable thing to do assuming they are supporting a PAC that follows the law.  Trustees David VanDyke and Robert Roth each contributed $3,000 to the 616 PAC.  Lee VanPopering and Michael DeVries gave $500.   Chris Afendoulis and Edward Robinette (whose name is misspelled in the report) gave $250.  Rusty Merchant is the only trustee who apparently did not contribute.  

If I  understand the Michigan campaign finance law correctly (and I may be wrong), the 616 PAC was limited to $2000 to support the four incumbents.  It spent $7500.  I’ve asked for more details, which I will post here if I get them, but it looks to me as if the 616 PAC violated Michigan law in financing the campaign to re-elect the incumbent trustees.

More on Electronic Billboards in Grand Rapids Township

Supervisor Michael Devries sent me a copy of the lawsuit filed by Hocul Advertising against Grand Rapids Township, which asks that the Township’s ordinance banning electronic billboards (and off-site advertising in general) be ruled unconstitutional. It makes interesting reading.

This is an issue currently being litigated around the country. Several states and many cities have banned them, or are considering a ban.  The usual result, as in Grand Rapids Township, is a lawsuit.  A by-now somewhat outdated article in USA Today from 2010 is an introduction to the issues.  A good recent report comes from the G.R. Law firm Mika, Meyers, Beckett and Jones.

These billboards can range from $200,000 to  $500,000 to erect, far more than traditional billboards.  However, they have all sorts of advantages to advertisers.  The content can be managed remotely.  I had a student a few years back who worked for a billboard company.  He could change the content from his dorm room.  Differential rates can be charged, higher  during prime commuting hours, lower at 3 a.m.  This allows companies to get far more revenue from the same space than is possible with traditional billboards — and advertisers like them because they can pay less for part-time advertising on digital billboards than for having exclusive placement on a traditional one.

However, these billboards are obtrusive (which, of course, is exactly why billboard companies want to erect them).  Day or night (and especially at night), they are hard to ignore. Their light pollution blots out the night sky. They distract drivers, particularly when not along expressways (two of the proposed billboards are along the Beltline, one on East Paris).  They consume a great deal of energy.

For a report on some of the unfortunate effects of electronic billboards, see a report titled Illuminating the Issues. 

Six Electronic Proposed Billboards in G. R. Township

Hocul Advertising LLC is suing Grand Rapids Township because it will not grant permission to erect electronic billboards.  Under township ordinance off-site signs are not allowed.  Hocul Advertising had earlier filed suit in federal court, which ruled it did not have jurisdiction, so it has now filed suit in Kent County Circuit Court.

The company wants to erect six signs.  The addresses given in Jan Holst’s Cadence article are 4609 Cascade Rd., 660 Cascade West Parkway, 2300 and 2808 East Beltline NE, and 1000 and 1002 East Paris.  The East Paris billboards are close together, one facing I-96, the other East Paris.  Clicking on the map will pull up a larger version.

The court will have to determine the legality of the ban, but I hope it supports the township.  There are enough such billboards already.  They are obtrusive, which is exactly why Hocul wants them.  Day or night they blot the landscape.