Rum, Romanism and Rebellion

In another victory for the Clean Elections system, an administrative law judge said that the Clean Elections Commission was right to remove Rep. David Burnell Smith from office for violating the terms of his Clean Elections contract.

The commission unanamously concluded a few months ago that Smith exceeded the limits set forth in the Clean Elections public financing law. The law states that overstepping the limit by 10% is enough of a violation to nullify your election. Smith’s expenditures broke the limit by 11%.

The Clean Elections law has withstood many challenges regarding its use of public money to finance campaigns. This is a different sort, but very important, test: does the commission that enforces the rules have the power to mete out the ultimate political punishment?

The decision now goes back to the commission, but there is no reason to think that they will do anything but concur with the court’s opinion. From there, Smith could appeal the decision to a higher court, or the commission can go to the supreme court, which would obviate any opinion from a lower court. So this isn’t over yet, but it could be soon.

Smith is a freshman legislator, and was a perennial candidate before that. He’s an easy target to take out. I wonder what would happen if a more prominent candidate violated the rules? So far, the only case that seems to approach this level of punishment is the fine given to a group of libertarian candidates, another easy target. The real test comes when a long time legislative leader or a candidate for state wide office violates the rules.

Smith’s various defenses have been amusing. At one point, he had his accountant shuffle the books and move expenses to different dates. The judge pooh-poohed this one in his decision. He also claims that he can only be removed through recall or impeachment. Not true. Corporation Commissioner Tony West was thrown out for holding a securities license. They actually nullified his election and put his predecessor, Renz Jennings, back in office until a successor could be appointed.

I’ve heard Smith’s supporters claim that it’s too hard to follow the Clean Elections rules, and that its a simple mistake and so unfair. If Smith and others like him (there are several others, all advised by a consultant named Constantine Querard) don’t like the “onerous” rules of the Clean Elections system, they can opt out. Nothing forces a candidate to run “clean” except public pressure. These guys never liked the system in the first place, so why should they run under it anyway?

That is the main point to remember. Smith (who brags of a JD on his legislative biography) signed a contract saying he would abide by the rules. As many of you know, I work with teenage dropouts. The kids have to sign a contract saying that they will not do drugs, wear gang colors, use their phones in class, things like that. We pay them a stipend and give them an education, that’s the deal. Sure enough, I’ll get a kid wearing colors talking on his cell phone. They’ll complain that they don’t know the rules; I tell them that they signed a contract. They say, “I didn’t read it,” as if that’s a defense. I tell them that after they graduate, I’d like to lease them a car.

Need a new car, Mr. Smith?