RSS
|
|
Some key fundraisers for Easley in Wilmington testified Monday that Easley campaign officials had told them to give to the party — apparently to a “special account” — to cover Easley campaign expenses.
State law allows a donor to give unlimited amounts of money to a party, compared to the $4,000 limit that can be given to candidates. The party can, in turn, give unlimited amounts to campaigns. However, it would be illegal for the party to turn over a donation to a candidate solely because the donor specified whom the donor wanted to receive the money.
Horne, who as treasurer filed campaign reports for Easley’s campaigns while attorney general and governor until 2006, said he wasn’t aware of a special party account dedicated to Easley.
Then-party executive director Scott Falmlen had the authority over the money received from people who were convinced to donate by Easley’s campaign.
“Mr. Falmlen made very clear to me and other members of our campaign that money raised for the Democratic Party would be spent as the Democratic Party decided it should be spent,” Horne testified. “We knew that is the law.”
The five-member, quasi-judicial elections board could issue fines or reprimands, refer the case to a district attorney for criminal charges, or exonerate the party and The Mike Easley Committee. Easley has been represented at the hearing by a lawyer wasn’t expected to be called to testify until at least Wednesday.
The board presented to Horne documents identified as internal draft fundraising strategies from then-Easley campaign officials suggesting that the party take larger advantage of the law allowing for unlimited party donations.
“In theory, we could move any or all expenditures from our campaign to the (state party) and pay for them with contributions to the (party) unhindered by the $4,000 contribution limit,” then-Easley campaign manager Jay Reiff wrote in a May 2000 memo to Horne.
Donors might be displeased that they wouldn’t get public credit from Easley for giving to the party, Reiff wrote, but, “those limits considered, running a portion of our expenses through the (party) is advantageous.”
On cross-examination, party attorney Jim Cooney presented documents showing any “special account” acutally was money that Easley was asked to raise on behalf of the party’s “coordinated campaign” for get-out-the-vote efforts and other combined party activities.
Easley’s campaign had agreed to raise $418,000 before the 2000 election and $500,000 in 2004, Cooney said. This fundraising is lawful and Easley couldn’t use or transfer those funds unilaterally.
The Easley campaign did receive money from the party in 2000 but it was only 3 percent of the $10.6 million the campaign raised, he said.
“Would it be fair to say that the Easley committee couldn’t pay for a pizza using North Carolina Democratic Party funds unless Mr. Falmlen approved?” Cooney asked. Horne agreed.
Horne also testified that Easley had positive things to say about McQueen Campbell, a political ally who gave damaging testimony Monday against Easley, who left the Executive Mansion in January after eight years.
“I recall him making a general statement expressing confidence in him,” Horne testified, saying later that Easley considered Campbell an honest man.
Campbell testified Monday that Easley suggested that Campbell file invoices on unreported airplane flights he gave to Easley to pay for some home repairs Campbell took care of on the governor’s home. Campbell said he filed two false invoices totaling $11,000, which would be illegal.
Horne’s legal assistant also told the board Easley called her to pay at least one of the invoices valued at $6,300. Horne said he wasn’t aware the invoices actually were for home repairs until recently.
Thomas Hicks, Easley’s personal attorney, has said Easley wouldn’t tell Campbell to violate election laws. Hicks said Campbell should have filed invoices for nearly $88,000 in actual flight expenses for the govenrnor but weren’t reported in campaign reports.
Comments