From the Chicago Tribune:
LANSING, Mich. – Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox is being questioned by Democrats for giving $500,000 from a settlement with mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corp. to two Grand Rapids-area parks.
Democrats in the state Senate on Thursday seized on a story in the Grand Rapids Press that said $250,000 for one park traces to a conversation Cox, a Republican who is considering a run for governor in 2010, had with Peter Secchia, a major GOP donor who also heads fundraising for the county-owned Millennium Park.
Putting aside the fact that this idea happened to come from a top GOP donor, I’m not sure this was the best idea. People are losing their houses, and you’re spending your lender settlement money on parks?
I find it ironic that Cox, a Republican, would do this — considering that improper use of funds recovered in state settlements is one of the top ways that the Chamber of Commerce likes to attack consumer-activist attorneys general. Bad use of settlement funds is a great way for the Chamber to try and further limit the ability of consumers to have their rights vindicated. Not good, Cox.
There is good news, though. We hear from a potential Dem candidate for the Michigan AG’s race:
Democratic Sen. Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing, who may run for attorney general in 2010, accused Cox of using settlement dollars as a “personal political slush fund” and said the $500,000 should have gone to help more consumers.
Go, Sen. Whitmer!
Now, in fairness, I’m also going to criticize the statehouse Dems, who wanted Cox to put the money right into the state’s general revenue fund. I also think that would be a bad move. Once funds get sent to a state’s general revenue fund, as I’ve seen happen in Ohio, it’s anyone’s money to win. Statehouse politics — not consumers’ interests — would win out.
Keeping consumer protection recoveries in a specific fund is the best way to ensure that those recoveries go to further advance consumers’ interests, whether that be through direct consumer benefits/compensation, education/outreach efforts or funding the consumer protection section itself.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Chris Geidner is the award-winning senior political writer at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. In 2011, he received the Excellence in News Writing Award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for his coverage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found
“improper use of funds recovered in state settlements is one of the top ways that the Chamber of Commerce likes to attack consumer-activist attorneys general. Bad use of settlement funds is a great way for the Chamber to try and further limit the ability of consumers to have their rights vindicated. ”
Good point. Dave Barry has a long-running joke about how some of the tobacco settlement money went to subsidizing tobacco farmers. Although I think the better word here is “inappropriate,” not “improper” — if a state legislature wants to spend money a certain way, that’s not improper (assuming no laws or ethical requirements are broken) but it might be an inappropriate expenditure of money from a particular source. People just don’t think of money as wholly fungible.
You’re right as to my usage (although, here, it may have both been inappropriate and improper).