Conflicts, Suits, and Questions Galore in Georgia

You be the judge. According to <a href="http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia_elections_news/2010/06/18/ethics-commissio…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Atlanta <i>Journal-Constitution</i></a>, 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.<br>
<br>

When the state ethics commission subpoenaed records from the insurance
company, the company sued to stop the investigation.<br>
<br>
When the state ethics commission scheduled a hearing on this and other
matters relating to the candidate, the company sued to stop the hearing.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---