As Sorrell’s tenure winds down, campaign finance case heats up

Accusations are flying in the state’s ongoing prosecution of an alleged campaign finance law violation from nearly two years ago.

The case involving Attorney General Bill Sorrell’s pursuit of Dean Corren, who ran for lieutenant governor in 2014, is still pending in federal district court in Burlington and Washington County Superior Court.

Sorrell is leaving office next year. He signaled in a recent interview that he is prepared to settle for less than his original request of $72,000 in fines and penalties. He accused Corren and his lawyer, John Franco, of being responsible for the delays in the case.

Corren called Sorrell’s interest in a settlement “disingenuous.” Corren said he would not agree to a deal, had already spent close to $20,000 in legal fees and wanted his name cleared.

Corren insists Sorrell should drop the state case because a ruling by District Judge William Sessions this year contained sections Corren said completely undermined the attorney general’s fundamental argument that a bulk email sent out on Corren’s behalf by the Democratic Party was not allowable while he was taking public funds to pay for his campaign.

Sorrell and an assistant attorney general dispute Corren’s claim. They say the federal judge did not determine whether the specific email fell under an exemption in the rules on contributions. That question, they argue, is at the heart of the case being heard in state court. Sorrell said that if Sessions’ ruling — which largely focused on whether the public financing scheme is constitutional, which he determined it was — had undermined the state’s case, he would have appealed it.

The email in question was sent near the end of the 2014 race urging support for Corren, who was running against incumbent Republican Phil Scott. Corren, a longtime Progressive, ran under the Democratic Party banner and used the state’s public financing system, approved in 1997.

Under the law, a candidate can qualify for public financing for a campaign but is then precluded from raising any private money or receiving any in-kind services. Sorrell alleges the email amounted to a nonmonetary contribution.

In his original complaint, filed four months after Corren lost the election, Sorrell sought $72,000 as the punishment, which drew strong criticism when the value of the email was placed at $255. The attorney general, however, said his “hands were tied” and that the law left no flexibility. Under the original law, the sum that was in a candidate’s war chest when the violation occurs must be repaid.

In this case, Corren had $52,000. Sorrell sought additional fines of $20,000. (The Democratic Party agreed to a $10,000 penalty. Its executive director said it was a question reasonable minds could disagree on and the party wanted to move on and avoid costly litigation.)

Since then, the Legislature changed the law to give the attorney general flexibility in determining the amount of penalty and did so retroactively, so it could apply to the Corren case, according to Sorrell. But he said no talks have happened between his office and Corren’s team.

“There have been no discussions about trying to resolve this amicably. I stand ready to have those discussions,” Sorrell said, adding later, “I don’t want to litigate this case in the press. I will return any call I receive” from Corren and his attorney.

Corren deemed “extraordinary, breathtaking untruths” many of the claims by the attorney general, including that Corren’s side had produced the delays in the court cases. Corren has appealed Sessions’ ruling, which dismissed his effort to stop the attorney general from filing the state court case. In addition, Corren’s attorneys have asked the federal court to have some of their legal costs paid by the state.

According to Corren’s side, the federal decision makes clear that the kind of email sent out in support of Corren was permissible. The attorney general’s office said that question is still in dispute in the state court case. The judge’s March ruling contains language that appears to bolster the claim the email was an allowable exemption to the law, but the attorney general’s office says that interpretation would be misguided.

In dismissing Corren’s attempt to stop Sorrell, Judge Sessions said Corren could come back to federal court and refile his case if the state court served up a punishment that he wanted to challenge.

In the March ruling, Sessions said that “testimony before the court revealed confusion on all sides as to what the law allows, and whether political parties in particular can play a role in publicly financed campaigns.”

Sessions wrote that the law “allows candidates to communicate freely with, and receive meaningful assistance from, their supporters. Political parties in particular may provide public-financed candidates with office space, voter lists, training sessions, and other forms of traditional party support without violating any statutory restrictions.”

Assistant Attorney General Eve Jacobs-Carnahan said: “The central issue in the state case comes down to whether this particular in-kind contribution of the mass email to 19,000 people qualifies for an exemption from the definition of ‘contribution’ in 17 V.S.A. §2901(4). That is a mixed question of fact and law and was not before Judge Sessions to decide. That question of applying the law to the facts is before the state court.”

At the state court level, Corren said, the attorney general is seeking additional emails from him, what Corren called proof Sorrell did not have a case in the first place and was engaged in a “fishing expedition.” Sorrell said he is seeking information to back up the evidence he already has and that what he is seeking is routine.

If the case is not decided or settled, the next attorney general could take a different tack.

Corren said Sorrell never should have brought the case in the first place and rejected Sorrell’s view that changing the law gave him more room to maneuver. Corren told supporters Sorrell’s actions also precluded him from being able to run again for lieutenant governor this year. In a letter, he told them Sorrell’s court action put the whole system in dispute and that the fines being sought would financially cripple Corren’s family.

“The new flexibility is another lie,” Corren wrote in an email. “He always had the authority to do none of this, i.e. not to fabricate the notion of an illegal email in the first place, always had the authority not to prevent any payment, always had the authority to seek less than $20,000 (down to zero) for those two parts (accepting a contribution and failing to report a contribution) of his (entirely false) claim, and as of over a year ago, should have repudiated the $52,000 claim, which he did not do until possibly recently.”

Sorrell indicated he’s willing to settle but also preparing to move forward.

“I think it’s interesting it’s the prosecutor that leads the charge to change the statute to create more flexibility to not have such a draconian response,” Sorrell said. “Now we have the flexibility and the ability to uphold the public financing statute.”

Under the public finance law, a candidate for lieutenant governor who raises $17,500 from 750 Vermont voters in small contributions in a limited amount of time can qualify for state funding totaling $200,000.

The post As Sorrell’s tenure winds down, campaign finance case heats up appeared first on VTDigger.