|
The more we know about Mike Hatch, the more obvious it is that he isn't an ethical man. It's equally obvious that he won't hesitate to help his political allies. It appears as though that's precisely what Mr. Hatch did when he settled a case against Capitol One. Here's WCCO's reporting:
A Minnesota government investigator has questioned whether former Attorney General Mike Hatch was out to aid a political ally in a 2006 settlement with a credit card company that steered nearly $500,000 away from the state treasury and toward nonprofit groups.
According to an inquiry by the legislative auditor made public Monday, Hatch's office agreed to drop its deceptive-advertising case against Capital One Bank that February in exchange for $749,999, a dollar short of a statutory threshold for automatic deposit of settlement funds into state coffers.
Instead, Hatch's office and the defendant were able to pick other recipients for two-thirds of the proceeds: the Minnesota chapters of the Legal Aid Society and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN. The state got $250,000 to cover its investigative costs.
Mr. Hatch has some questions to answer. Here are a few suggestions:
- What was Mr. Hatch's motivation for diverting the money away from state coffers and into the back account of an organization known for voter fraud?
- Why didn't Minnesota get the full amount?
- Why was even a penny directed to ACORN?
- What does a Democratic voter registration organization have to do with Capital One Bank's deceptive-advertising case?
It seems to me that ACORN has as much to do with a civil lawsuit as night has in common with day. It doesn't sound like Jim Nobles is buying into it:
Nobles discussed the Capital One case Monday before a panel of state legislators. He said he has found nothing illegal with the court-approved settlement but told reporters later that he hasn't ruled out further investigation if new information arises.
Nobles said the settlement amount was eye-catching and the circumstances demanded explanation. "I don't think anybody can look at that one dollar less than the legally allowed amount and not think it looks somewhat suspicious," Nobles said.
Here's the part of Hatch's story that I'm not buying:
He justified the financial arrangement as vital to winning Capital One's approval because the company wanted to avoid paying a civil penalty to the state; it would only agree to pay the attorney general office's costs. Hatch insisted that ACORN was chosen by Capital One. Hatch said there was "no linkage" between the ACORN PAC endorsement of him and the settlement.
"I think that most political commentators will tell you the last organization that could be influenced with money is ACORN," Hatch wrote to Nobles. "If somebody truly believed such an allegation, they would not have waited 27 months to make the claim."
Excuse me, Mr. Hatch? That's patently absurd. ACORN workers are paid based on the number of voters they register. In fact, ACORN workers pled guilty in Seattle of voter fraud:
Elsewhere, four ACORN canvassers in Kansas City, Mo., have pleaded guilty in federal court to felony voter-registration fraud.
It's insulting to hear Mr. Hatch say that ACORN can't "be influenced with money." I've also hear but haven't verified that the original settlement was suggested by Hatch and that the figure was substantially north of $749,999.
I just spoke with someone from the Capitol that said that what Hatch did doesn't rise to the level of crime at this point. This contact did point me to something else that Jim Nobles is digging into:
Seperately, Nobles said he is reviewing the office's spending from a federal Medicaid account in response to allegations that a small amount was improperly diverted to employee travel. Swanson's office disputes that money from the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit budget was misused.
This could be explosive. If someone steps forward and testifies that money was used on something other thatn Medicare/Medicaid items, then that's potentially the basis for a criminal investigation.
A larger point must be made about the ACORN settlement, too. The legislature needs to rewrite the law so that it isn't left to the Attorney General's discretion to direct settlements to any organization, whether it's to ACORN, a charity or an NPO. The legislation ideally would mandate that any settlements must go the state's accounts. PERIOD.
There should also be an accountability clause written into this legislation. Ideally, this legislation should mandate that the Legislative Auditor investigate when a lawsuit is filed by the AG's office but then is dropped. In other words, we should ensure that the AG's office doesn't threaten a lawsuit, then quietly drops the lawsuit but their favorite NPO gets some quiet cash.
I don't know how to write all those things into the legislation but that should be part of the legislation.
Comments welcome at LFR. |
